1998-07-033817REPS602501998-07-03Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) resumed the chair at 9.30 a.m.Business602509:30:006025Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: the process for this morning will be to deal with the Wik legislation. Once I have completed these short remarks, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) will take up the process issues. That will provide for addresses by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for up to 20 minutes, 15 minutes for the second speakers and then five-minute opportunities in accordance with what would normally be the case in this consideration, with 100 minutes being set aside all up for the consideration this morning.As to the sitting arrangements, the Senate is scheduled to sit all of next week through till 3.45 p.m. on Friday. The Senate will have before it the Wik legislation, Telstra and then a series of other bills—country of origin labelling, intellectual property, copyright, child support amongst others—about which there is a real prospect of amendments. Therefore, there is a need for the House of Representatives to sit again. The Senate this morning is considering the digital TV legislation. If that is able to be transmitted to the House in the next hour, then we should deal with it at the conclusion of the Wik matter, but that is not my expectation. I am awaiting further advice from the Senate on that matter.Under that scenario we would also expect that it would be wise to be back, say, Monday week or something of that order, but obviously we cannot come to any conclusion about a sitting time until matters unfold in the Senate. Upon the return of the House, I would certainly expect us to have a full day, and in government business on that day we would have the regional forest legislation amongst others. So that is the course of events. On that course, we should certainly be finished by 11.30 a.m.09:32:006025Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: so that we do know with certainty, if it is to be government business as per a normal day—whether it is Monday or whatever other day—will that involve a question time as has been the normal practice when the House has been brought back for a day as distinct from today's sitting, which is under a suspension? I am asking the Leader of the House (Mr Reith): will we get a question time on the day that we come back?09:33:006025Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: I understand that, of the seven last occasions the House sat for a separate day under Labor, on only two occasions was a question time provided. We have not given consideration to the program for that day. When we have given consideration to the program for that day, we will advise you.Bills60256025Motion (by Mr Williams)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the moving forthwith of a motion(a) rescinding the resolution of the House of 8 and 9 April 1998 to lay aside the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2];(b) requiring the amendments made by the Senate to the bill to be reconsidered forthwith;(c) enabling amendments to the bill not relevant to, or consequent upon, either the acceptance or the rejection of an amendment of the Senate to be moved;(d) one motion to be moved in respect of all of the amendments;(e) fixing time limits for the whole debate and speech time limits for Members speaking in the debate.6025Motion (by Mr Williams) agreed to:That: (a) the resolution of the House of 8 and 9 April 1998 to lay aside the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] be rescinded;(b) the amendments made by the Senate to the bill be reconsidered forthwith;(c) amendments to the bill not relevant to, or consequent upon, either the acceptance or the rejection of an amendment of the Senate may be moved by a Minister;(d) one motion may be moved in respect of all of the amendments;(e) debate on the motion continue for a period not exceeding 100 minutes with speech time limits as follows: mover of motion—20 minutes first Opposition Member speaking—20 minutes next 2 Members speaking—15 minutes each other Members—5 minutes each.Bills6026r455602609:36:006026Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That: (a) the resolution of the House agreeing to certain Senate amendments be amended as follows— from the list of Senate amendments formerly agreed to delete the following: Govt (3); (9); (12); (14); (17); (19); (26); (29); (44); (51); (61); (70); (77); (78) and (87); Opp (N5); (N10) to (N16); (N19); (N45) to (N47); (RR101); (RR107); (RR110); (RN32) and (R114); and Dems-GWA (163); and insert the following: Opp (N6) to (N8); Dems-GWA (190)/Opp (223); Dems-GWA (192); Opp (129)/Dems-GWA (119); Opp (135)/Dems-GWA (125); Opp (137)/Dems-GWA (127) Opp (139)/Dems-GWA (129); Opp (140)/Dems-GWA (130); Opp (144); (149); (150); (159); (160); (166); (174) and (176); and Opp (354)/Dems-GWA (329); (b) the resolution of the House disagreeing to certain Senate amendments be amended as follows: from the list of Senate amendments formerly disagreed to delete the following: Opp (N6) to (N8); Dems-GWA (190)/Opp (223); Dems-GWA (192); Opp (129)/Dems-GWA (119); Opp (135)/Dems-GWA (125); Opp (137)/Dems-GWA (127); Opp (139)/Dems-GWA (129); Opp (140)/Dems-GWA (130); Opp (144); (149); (150); (159); (160); (166); (174); and (176); and Opp (354)/Dems-GWA (329); and insert the following: Govt (3); (9); (12); (14); (17); (19); (26); (29); (44); (51); (61); (70); (77); (78); and (87); Opp (N5); (N10) to (N16); (N19); (N45) to (N47); (RR101); (RR107); (RR110); (RN32); and Opp (R114); and Dems-GWA (163).Government amendments—(H1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:3 Section 7Repeal the section, substitute:7 Racial Discrimination Act(1) This Act is intended to be read and construed subject to the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 .(2) Subsection (1) means only that: (a) the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 apply to the performance of functions and the exercise of powers conferred by or authorised by this Act; and (b) to construe this Act, and thereby to determine its operation, ambiguous terms should be construed consistently with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 if that construction would remove the ambiguity.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the validation of past acts or intermediate period acts in accordance with this Act. [section 7]Confirmation(H2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (lines 23 to 28), omit subsection (9), substitute:Exclusion of acts benefiting Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders(9) An act is not a previous exclusive possession act if it is: (a) the grant or vesting of any thing that is made or done by or under legislation that makes provision for the grant or vesting of such things only to, in or for the ben efit of, Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; or (b) the grant or vesting of any thing expressly for the benefit of, or to or in a person to hold on trust expressly for the benefit of, Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; or (c) the grant or vesting of any thing over particular land or waters, if at the time a thing covered by paragraph (a) or (b) is in effect in relation to the land or waters.Note: The expression Aboriginal peoples is defined in section 253.Exclusion of national parks etc.(9A) An act is not a previous exclusive possession act if the grant or vesting concerned involves the establishment of an area, such as a national, State or Territory park, for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area.Exclusion of acts where legislation provides for non-extinguishment(9B) An act is not a previous exclusive possession act if it is done by or under legislation that expressly provides that the act does not extinguish native title.Exclusion of Crown to Crown grants etc.(9C) If an act is the grant or vesting of an interest in relation to land or waters to or in the Crown in any capacity or a statutory authority, the act is not a previous exclusive possession act : (a) unless, apart from this Act, the grant or vesting extinguishes native title in relation to the land or waters; or (b) if the grant or vesting does not, apart from this Act, extinguish native title in relation to the land or waters—unless and until the land or waters are (whether before or after 23 December 1996) used to any extent in a way that, apart from this Act, extinguishes native title in relation to the land or waters. [section 23B](H3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (after line 31), at the end of section 23B, add:Effect of exclusions(11) To avoid doubt, the fact that an act is, because of any of the previous subsections, not a previous exclusive possession act does not imply that the act is not valid. [section 23B](H4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 16 (after line 4), after section 23D, insert: 23DA Confirmation of validity of use of certain land held by Crown etc.To avoid doubt, if the act is a previous exclusive possession act because of paragraph 23B(9C)(b) (which deals with grants to the Crown etc.), the use of the land or waters concerned as mentioned in that paragraph is valid. [section 23DA](H5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 16 (line 8), after "23D", insert "or 23DA". [section 23E](H6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 17 (lines 15 to 34), omit subsection (1), substitute:(1) Subject to subsection (2), if a previous non-exclusive possession act (see section 23F) is attributable to the Commonwealth: (a) to the extent that the act involves the grant of rights and interests that are not inconsistent with native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters covered by the lease concerned, the rights and interests granted, and the doing of any activity in giving effect to them, prevail over the native title rights and interests but do not extinguish them; and (b) to the extent that the act involves the grant of rights and interests that are inconsistent with native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters covered by the lease concerned: (i) if, apart from this Act, the act extinguishes the native title rights and interests—the native title rights and interests are extinguished; and (ii) in any other case—the native title rights and interests are suspended while the lease concerned, or the lease as renewed, re-made, re-granted or extended, is in force; and (c) any extinguishment under this subsection is taken to have happened when the act was done. [section 23G](H7) Schedule 1, item 49, page 140 (line 24), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute: (a) anything set out in Schedule 1, other than a mining lease or anything whose grant or vesting is covered by subsection 23B(9), (9A), (9B), (9C) or (10) (which provide that certain acts are not previous exclusive possession acts); or [section 249C]Indigenous land use agreements(H8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (line 13), omit "If", substitute "Subject to subsection 24EBA(6), if". [section 22B](H9) Schedule 1, item 9, page 22 (after line 21), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) particular future acts (other than intermediate period acts), or future acts (other than intermediate period acts) included in classes, that have already been done;Note: Intermediate period acts are or can be validated only under Division 2A. (ab) changing the effects, that are provided for by section 22B or by a law of a State or Territory that contains provisions to the same effect, of an intermediate period act or of intermediate period acts included in classes; [section 24BB](H10) Schedule 1, item 9, page 23 (after line 30), at the end of section 24BD, add:Procedure where no representative body party (4) If there are any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for any of the area and none of them is proposed to be a party to the agreement, the registered native title body corporate, before entering into the agreement: (a) must inform at least one of the representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies of its intention to enter into the agreement; and (b) may consult any such representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies about the agreement. [section 24BD](H11) Schedule 1, item 9, page 25 (lines 19 to 24), omit section 24BI, substitute:24BI Registration of body corporate agreements(1) Subject to this section, the Registrar must register the agreement on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements.(2) The Registrar must not register the agreement if any of the parties to the agreement advises the Registrar, within 1 month after the Registrar gives notice under section 24BH, that the party does not wish the agreement to be registered on the Register.(3) The Registrar must not register the agreement if: (a) a representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body for any of the area advises the Registrar, within 1 month after the Registrar gives notice under section 24BH, that the requirements of paragraph 24BD(4)(a) were not complied with in relation to the agreement; and (b) the Registrar is satisfied that the requirements were not complied with. [section 24BI](H12) Schedule 1, item 9, page 26 (after line 6), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) particular future acts (other than intermediate period acts), or future acts (other than intermediate period acts) included in classes, that have already been done; Note: Intermediate period acts are or can be validated only under Division 2A. (ab) changing the effects, that are provided for by section 22B or by a law of a State or Territory that contains provisions to the same effect, of an intermediate period act or of intermediate period acts included in classes; [section 24CB](H13) Schedule 1, item 9, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of section 24CD, add:Procedure where no representative body party(7) If there are any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for any of the area and none of them is proposed to be a party to the agreement, a person in the native title group, before entering into the agreement: (a) must inform at least one of the representative Aboriginal/Torres Islander bodies of its intention to enter into the agreement; and (b) may consult any such representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies about the agreement. Note: The registration of agreements that are certified by a representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body is facilitated under section 24CK. [section 24CD](H14) Schedule 1, item 9, page 35 (after line 14), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) particular future acts (other than intermediate period acts), or future acts (other than intermediate period acts) included in classes, that have already been done; Note: Intermediate period acts are or can be validated only under Division 2A. [section 24DB](H15) Schedule 1, item 9, page 45 (after line 5), after section 24EB, insert:24EBA Effect of registration on previous acts covered by indigenous land use agreementsCoverage of section(1) The consequences set out in this section apply if: (a) details are on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements of an agreement that includes a statement to the effect that the parties agree to: (i) the validating of a particular future act (other than an intermediate period act), or future acts (other than intermediate period acts) included in classes, that have already been done invalidly; orNote: Intermediate period acts are or can be validated only under Division 2A. (ii) the validating, subject to conditions, of a particular future act (other than an intermediate period act), or of future acts (other than intermediate period acts) included in classes, that have already been done invalidly; or (iii) changing the effects, that are provided for by section 22B (which relates to native title rights and interests) or by a law of a State or Territory that contains provisions to the same effect, of an intermediate period act or of intermediate period acts included in classes; and (b) whichever of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory to which the act or class of acts is attributable is a party to the agreement; and (c) where, whether under the agreement or otherwise, a person other than the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory is or may become liable to pay compensation in relation to the act or class of acts—that person is a party to the agreement.Commonwealth future acts valid(2) If subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) applies and the future act or class of future acts is attributable to the Commonwealth, the act or class of acts is valid, and is taken always to have been valid.State or Territory laws may validate their future acts(3) If subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) applies and the future act or class of future acts is attributable to a State or Territory, a law of the State or the Territory may provide that the act or class of acts is valid, and is taken always to have been valid. The law may do so by applying to all acts, to classes of acts, or to particular acts, to which subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) applies in respect of which the requirements of subsection (1) are or become satisfied.Non-extinguishment principle applies to future acts(4) If subsection (2) applies or a law makes provision in accordance with subsection (3), the non-extinguishment principle applies to the act or class of acts unless: (a) the act or class of acts is the surrender of native title; and (b) the agreement includes a statement to the effect that the surrender is intended to have extinguished the native title rights and interests.Compensation consequences of future acts(5) If subsection (2) applies or a law makes provision in accordance with subsection (3), the consequences set out in subsection 24EB(4), (5) or (6), and the consequences set out in subsection 24EB(7), apply to the act or to each of the acts in the class.Changing the effects of validated acts(6) If subparagraph (1)(a)(iii) applies, the effects mentioned in that subparagraph are changed in accordance with the agreement.Note about Schedule 1, item 9: The heading to section 24EB (page 42, line 17) is altered by omitting "future " and substituting "proposed ". [section 24EBA](H16) Schedule 1, item 30, page 131 (lines 7 to 10), omit subsection 199C(3), substitute:Ground for order(3) The ground is that a party would not have entered into the agreement but for fraud, undue influence or duress by any person (whether or not a party to the agreement).Compensation order(4) If the Court orders the Registrar to remove the details, the Court may also order the person who committed the fraud, exerted the influence or applied the duress to pay compensation to any party to the agreement who will suffer loss or damage as a result of the removal of the details. [section 199C]Primary production(H17) Schedule 1, item 9, page 49 (after line 26), at the end of subsection (1), add:; and (e) the future act could have been validly done or authorised at some time before 31 March 1998, if any native title in relation to the area covered by the lease had not then existed. [section 24GB](H18) Schedule 1, item 9, page 52 (after line 16), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (d) at some time before 31 March 1998, the activity could have been done under any legislation then in force, or under any lease, licence, permit or authority that could have then been issued, in relation to the area covered by the lease, if any native title in relation to the area covered by the lease had not then existed. [section 24GC](H19) Schedule 1, item 9, page 53 (after line 31), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (f) if: (i) before the future act is done, an approved determination of native title is made in relation to the land or waters on which any activity permitted or required by the future act takes place; and (ii) the determination is that native title exists in relation to the land or waters and that the native title rights and interests confer exclusive possession of the land or waters on the native title holders; the doing of the activity is not inconsistent with the exercise of the native title rights and interests. [section 24GD](H20) Schedule 1, page 145 (after line 32), after item 57, insert:57A Section 253 (paragraph (c) of the definition of mine )Repeal the paragraph, substitute:(c) quarry;but does not include extract, obtain or remove sand, gravel, rocks or soil from the natural surface of land, or of the bed beneath waters, for a purpose other than: (d) extracting, producing or refining minerals from the sand, gravel, rocks or soil; or (e) processing the sand, gravel, rocks or soil by non-mechanical means. [section 253]Water etc.(H21) Schedule 1, item 9, page 56 (line 25), omit "forms", substitute "forms and management or regulation of water includes granting access to water, or taking water". [section 24HA](H22) Schedule 1, item 9, page 57 (line 9), omit "forms", substitute "forms and management or regulation of water includes granting access to water, or taking water". [section 24HA]Renewals(H22A) Schedule 1, item 9, page 60 (line 17), at the end of paragraph (c), add "(other than a mining lease)". [section 24IC](H23) Schedule 1, item 9, page 61 (line 18), omit "paragraph 24IB(b)", substitute "paragraph (1)(b)". [section 24ID](H24) Schedule 1, item 9, page 61 (after line 28), at the end of section 24ID, add:Other procedural rights(4) If: (a) the act is a permissible lease etc. renewal of a non-exclusive agricultural lease (see section 247B) or a non-exclusive pastoral lease (see section 248B); and (b) the act is covered by paragraph 24IC(4)(b) or (c);subsection 24MD(6B) applies to the act as if the act were a compulsory acquisition, of the kind mentioned in that subsection, of native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters that will be affected by the act, done by: (c) if the act is attributable to the Commonwealth—the Commonwealth; or (d) if the act is attributable to a State or Territory—that State or Territory. [section 24ID]Services to the public(H25) Schedule 1, item 9, page 65 (after line 25), after subsection (1), insert:Compulsory acquisitions not covered(1A) To avoid doubt, this Subdivision does not apply to a future act that is the compulsory acquisition of the whole or part of any native title rights and interests. [section 24KA](H26) Schedule 1, item 9, page 67 (line 2), after "holders", insert ", and any registered native title claimants in relation to land or waters in the area concerned,". [section 24KA](H27) Schedule 1, item 9, page 67 (after line 12), after subsection (7), insert:Native title rights and interests to be considered(7A) If, in the exercise of those procedural rights, the native title holders are entitled to have matters considered, those matters include their native title rights and interests. [section 24KA](H28) Schedule 1, item 9, page 67 (after line 27), at the end of section 24KA, add:Satisfying other procedural rights(9) If: (a) because of subsection (7) or any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, the native title holders have a procedural right that requires another person to do any thing in relation to the native title holders; and (b) there has been no approved determination of the native title; then one way in which the person may give effect to the requirement is: (c) by doing the thing in relation to any registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters in the area concerned; or (d) if there are no such registered native title claimants—by ensuring that any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for the area concerned have an opportunity to comment on the doing of the act. [section 24KA]Freehold test and offshore(H29) Schedule 1, item 9, page 69 (after line 32), after paragraph (b), before the example, insert:; and (c) a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory makes provision in relation to the preservation or protection of areas, or sites, that may be: (i) in the area to which the act relates; and (ii) of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in accordance with their traditions. [section 24MB](H30) Schedule 1, item 9, page 70 (after line 9), at the end of subsection 24MB(2), add:; and (d) a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory makes provision in relation to the preservation or protection of areas, or sites, that may be: (i) in the area to which the act relates; and (ii) of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in accordance with their traditions. [section 24MB](H31) Schedule 1, item 9, page 71 (line 4), before "or otherwise", insert "or by surrender, cancellation or resumption". [section 24MD](H32) Schedule 1, item 9, page 73 (lines 15 to 18), omit all the words in subsection (6) after paragraph (d), substitute: the consequences in subsections (6A) and (6B) apply. [section 24MD]Note about Schedule 1, item 9: The heading to subsection 24MD(6) (page 73, line 4) is replaced by the heading "Consequences of certain acts ".(H33) Schedule 1, item 9, page 73 (after line 18), after subsection (6), insert:Procedural rights (6A) The native title holders, and any registered native title claimants in relation to the land or waters concerned, have the same procedural rights as they would have in relation to the act on the assumption that they instead held ordinary title to any land concerned and to the land adjoining, or surrounding, any waters concerned.Other consequences(6B) If the act is: (a) the compulsory acquisition of native title rights and interests for the purpose of conferring rights or interests in relation to the land or waters concerned on persons other than the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory to which the act is attributable; or (b) the creation or variation of a right to mine for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility (see section 253) associated with mining;Note: The acts covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) are not covered by Subdivision P: see subsection (6) and paragraph 26(1)(c).the following consequences also apply: (c) the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory to which the act is attributable must notify each of the following: (i) any registered native title claimant (a claimant ) in relation to the land or waters; and (ii) any native title body corporate (a body corporate ), in relation to the land or waters; and (iii) any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body in relation to the land or waters; that the act is to be done; and (d) any claimant or body corporate may object, within 2 months after the notification, to the doing of the act so far as it affects their registered native title rights and interests; and (e) either: (i) in a paragraph (a) case—the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory; or (ii) in a paragraph (b) case—the person who requested or applied for the doing of the act; must consult any claimants, and bodies corporate, who object, about ways of minimising the act's impact on registered native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters, and, if relevant, any access to the land or waters or the way in which any thing authorised by the act might be done; and (f) if any claimant or body corporate objects, as mentioned in paragraph (d), to the doing of the act and so requests, the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory must ensure that the objection is heard by an independent person or body; and (g) if the independent person or body hearing any objection as mentioned in paragraph (f) makes a determination upholding the objection, or that contains conditions about the doing of the act that relate to registered native title rights and interests, the determination must be complied with unless: (i) the Minister of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory responsible for indigenous affairs is consulted; and (ii) the consultation is taken into account; and (iii) it is in the interests of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory not to comply with the determination.Meaning of determination(6C) In paragraph (6B)(g): determination includes recommendation. in the interests of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory includes: (a) for the social or economic benefit of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory (including of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders); and (b) in the interests of the relevant region or locality in the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory. [section 24MD](H34) Schedule 1, item 9, page 73 (line 21), omit "(6)", substitute "(6A)". [section 24MD](H35) Schedule 1, item 9, page 73 (after line 33), at the end of section 24MD, add:Satisfying other procedural rights(8) If: (a) because of subsection (6A) or any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, the native title holders have a procedural right that requires another person to do any thing in relation to the native title holders; and (b) there has been no approved determination of the native title;then one way in which the person may give effect to the requirement is: (c) by doing the thing in relation to any registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters in the area concerned; or (d) if there are no such registered native title claimants—by ensuring that any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for the area concerned have an opportunity to comment on the doing of the act. [section 24MD](H36) Schedule 1, item 9, page 74 (line 24), before "or otherwise", insert "or by surrender, cancellation or resumption". [section 24NA](H37) Schedule 1, item 9, page 76 (line 8), after "holders", insert ", and any registered native title claimants in relation to land or waters in the area concerned,". [section 24NA](H38) Schedule 1, item 9, page 76 (after line 26), at the end of section 24NA, add:Satisfying other procedural rights(10) If: (a) because of subsection (8) or any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, the native title holders have a procedural right that requires another person to do any thing in relation to the native title holders; and (b) there has been no approved determination of the native title;then one way in which the person may give effect to the requirement is: (c) by doing the thing in relation to any registered native title claimant in relation to land or waters in the area concerned; or (d) if there are no such registered native title claimants—by ensuring that any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for the area concerned have an opportunity to comment on the doing of the act. [section 24NA]Right to negotiate(H39) Schedule 1, item 9, page 21 (line 2), after "section", insert "24IC (permissible lease etc. renewals) or section". [section 24AA](H40) Schedule 1, item 9, page 60 (line 33), before "the", insert "subject to Subdivision P (which deals with the right to negotiate),". [section 24ID](H41) Schedule 1, item 9, page 60 (after line 33), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add: Note: Subdivision P applies only to certain renewals of mining leases etc.: see subsections 26(1A) and 26D(1). [section 24ID](H42) Schedule 1, item 9, page 77 (lines 3 to 6), omit "a future act to which Subdivision M (which deals with acts that pass the freehold test) applies that is done by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, and is", substitute "certain future acts done by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory that are". [section 25](H43) Schedule 1, item 9, page 77 (before line 7), before paragraph 25(1)(a), insert: (aa) certain acts covered by section 24IC (which deals with permissible lease etc. renewals); [section 25](H44) Schedule 1, item 9, page 77 (before line 25), before subsection 26(1), insert: Subdivision applies to certain permissible lease etc. renewals(1A) This Subdivision applies to a future act if: (a) section 24IC (which deals with permissible lease etc. renewals) applies to the act; and (b) the act is done by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (the Government party ); and (c) the renewal, re-grant, re-making or extension of the term of the lease, licence, permit or authority concerned creates a right to mine. [section 26](H45) Schedule 1, item 9, page 77 (line 26), after "Subdivision", insert "also". [section 26]Note about Schedule 1, item 9: The heading to subsection 26(1) is altered by inserting "also " after "Subdivision ".(H46) Schedule 1, item 9, page 78 (line 5), after "otherwise", insert ", except one created for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility (see section 253) associated with mining". [section 26](H47) Schedule 1, item 9, page 78 (after line 5), at the end of subparagraph (i), add: Note: Rights to mine created for the sole purpose of the construction of an infrastructure facility associated with mining are dealt with in subsection 24MD(6B). [section 26](H48) Schedule 1, item 9, page 78 (lines 8 to 15), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) the compulsory acquisition of native title rights and interests, unless: (A) the purpose of the acquisition is to confer rights or interests in relation to the land or waters concerned on the Government party and the Government party makes a statement in writing to that effect before the acquisition takes place; or (B) the purpose of the acquisition is to provide an infrastructure facility; or Note: Certain compulsory acquisitions covered by sub-subparagraphs (iii)(A) and (B) are dealt with in subsection 24MD(6B). [section 26](H49) Schedule 1, item 9, page 79 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (f), substitute: (f) an act that is the compulsory acquisition of native title rights and interests and that relates solely to land or waters wholly within a town or city (see section 251C). [section 26](H50) Schedule 1, item 9, page 79 (line 22), omit "considers", substitute "is satisfied". [section 26A](H51) Schedule 1, item 9, page 84 (line 9), omit "identification and protection", substitute "protection and avoidance". [section 26B](H52) Schedule 1, item 9, page 88 (after line 5), at the end of subsection 26D(1), add: ; and (d) the term of the right is not longer than the term of the earlier right; and (e) no rights are created in connection with the right that were not created in connection with the earlier right. [section 26D](H53) Schedule 1, item 9, page 88 (lines 12 to 19), omit paragraphs (2)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) this Subdivision applied to the earlier act and, because: (i) an agreement of the kind mentioned in paragraph 31(1)(b) was made in relation to the earlier act; or (ii) a determination was made under section 38 that the earlier act might be done, or might be done subject to conditions being complied with; the earlier act was not invalid to any extent under section 28; and (c) the agreement or determination: (i) included a statement to the effect that, if the later act were done, this Subdivision would not apply to the later act; and (ii) provided that, if the later act were done, certain conditions would be complied with by parties other than native title parties (whether before or after the act was done); and [section 26D](H54) Schedule 1, item 9, page 99 (after line 23), at the end of section 35, add:Negotiations for an agreement(3) Even though the application has been made, the negotiation parties may continue to negotiate with a view to obtaining an agreement of the kind mentioned in paragraph 31(1)(b) before a determination in relation to the act is made under section 36A or 38. If they make such an agreement before such a determination is made, the application is taken to have been withdrawn. [section 35](H55) Schedule 1, item 9, page 99 (line 28) to page 100 (line 2), omit subsection 36(2), substitute:Determination not to be made where failure to negotiate in good faith(2) If any negotiation party satisfies the arbitral body that any other negotiation party (other than a native title party) did not negotiate in good faith as mentioned in paragraph 31(1)(b), the arbitral body must not make the determination on the application.Note: It would be possible for a further application to be made under section 35. [section 36](H56) Schedule 1, item 9, page 100 (line 5), omit "4 months", substitute "6 months". [section 36](H57) Schedule 1, item 9, page 100 (line 11), after "time", insert "later than 4 months". [section 36](H58) Schedule 1, item 9, page 100 (line 19), omit "4 months", substitute "6 months". [section 36](H59) Schedule 1, item 9, page 101 (after line 2), after subsection 36A(1), insert:Requirement for State/Territory Minister to consult before making determination(1A) If: (a) the relevant Minister is a State Minister or a Territory Minister; and (b) the determination is that the act may be done or may be done subject to conditions to be complied with by any of the parties;the relevant Minister may only make the determination after he or she has consulted the Commonwealth Minister about the determination. [section 36A](H60) Schedule 1, item 9, page 101 (line 25), omit "(if relevant)". [section 36B](H61) Schedule 1, item 9, page 101 (line 26) to page 102 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute:Notice to arbitral body(2) The relevant Minister must give written notice to the arbitral body requiring it, by the end of the day specified in the notice, to give the Minister and each negotiation party a summary of material that has been presented to the arbitral body in the course of the arbitral body considering whether to make a determination under section 38 in relation to the act. [section 36B](H62) Schedule 1, item 9, page 103 (after line 12), at the end of paragraph (6)(a), add: (iii) any consultations with the Commonwealth Minister as mentioned in subsection 36A(1A); and [section 36B](H63) Schedule 1, item 9, page 105 (after line 27), after subsection (1), insert:Determinations may cover other matters(1A) A determination may, with the agreement of the negotiation parties, provide that a particular matter that: (a) is not reasonably capable of being determined when the determination is made; and (b) is not directly relevant to the doing of the act;is to be the subject of further negotiations or to be determined in a specified manner.Example: The arbitral body could determine that a mining lease may be granted subject to site clearance procedures to be determined by a third person.Matters to be determined by arbitration(1B) If: (a) the manner specified is arbitration (other than by the arbitral body); and (b) the negotiation parties do not agree about the manner in which the arbitration is to take place;the arbitral body must determine the matter at an appropriate time. [section 38](H64) Schedule 1, item 9, page 106 (lines 30 to 33), omit paragraphs 39(1)(c) and (d), substitute: (c) the economic or other significance of the act to Australia, the State or Territory concerned, the area in which the land or waters concerned are located and Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders who live in that area; [section 39](H65) Schedule 1, item 9, page 113 (line 16) to page 116 (line 22), omit section 43A, substitute: 43A Exception to right to negotiate: satisfactory State/Territory provisionsDetermination about alternative provisions(1) If: (a) a law or laws of a State or Territory provide for alternative provisions to those contained in this Subdivision in relation to some or all acts to which this Subdivision applies that: (i) are attributable to the State or Territory; and (ii) relate, to any extent, to an area of land or waters that is an alternative provision area (see subsection (2)); and (b) the Commonwealth Minister determines in writing that the provisions comply with subsections (4) and (6) and that the requirements of subsection (7) are complied with;then, subject to subsection (10), while the determination is in force, the alternative provisions have effect instead of this Subdivision.Meaning of alternative provisionarea(2) An alternative provision area is: (a) an area: (i) that is, or was (whether before or after this Act commenced), covered by a freehold estate in fee simple or by a lease (other than a mining lease); and (ii) over which all native title rights and interests have not been extinguished; orExample 1: An example of such an area is an area covered by a non-exclusive agricultural lease or a non-exclusive pastoral lease (including one subject to section 47).Example 2: An example of a freehold estate in fee simple over which all native title rights and interests may not have been extinguished is one whose grant or vesting is covered by subsection 23B(9), (9A), (9B) or (9C). (b) an area that is, or was (whether before or after this Act commenced): (i) covered by a reservation, proclamation, dedication, condition, permission or authority, made or conferred by the Crown in right of the State or Territory or by the making, amendment or repeal of legislation of the State or Territory, under which the whole or a part of the land or waters in the area was to be used for public purposes generally or for a particular purpose; and (ii) in use for public purposes, for the particular purpose or for a similar purpose; orExample: An example of an area covered by paragraph (b) is an area containing a national park. (c) an area that, when the act is done, is wholly within a town or city (see section 251C).Notification of proposed determination(3) Before making the determination, the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) notify all representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies for the land or waters concerned of the proposed determination; and (b) invite submissions from them about the proposed determination; and (c) consider any submissions made in response to the invitation.Requirement to be satisfied: procedures etc.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the alternative provisions comply with this subsection if, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister, they: (a) contain appropriate procedures for notifying each of the following that an act to which the provisions apply is to be done: (i) any registered native title claimant (a claimant ) in relation to any of the land or waters to which the act relates; (ii) any registered native title body corporate (a body corporate ) in relation to any of that land or waters; (iii) any representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body in relation to any of that land or waters; and (b) give any claimant or body corporate the right to object, within a specified period after the notification, to the doing of the act so far as it affects their registered native title rights and interests; and (c) if the act is of the kind mentioned in subparagraph 26(1)(c)(iii) (which deals with certain compulsory acquisitions)—provide for consultation (including provide in relation to mediation) between: (i) any claimants, and bodies corporate, who object; and (ii) the State or Territory; about ways of minimising the act's impact on registered native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters concerned; and (d) in any other case—provide for consultation (including provide in relation to mediation) between: (i) any claimants, and bodies corporate, who object; and (ii) the person who requested or applied for the doing of the act; about ways of minimising the act's impact on registered native title rights and interests in relation to the land or waters concerned, including about any access to the land or waters or the way in which any thing authorised by the act might be done; and (e) if any person objects as mentioned in paragraph (b), provide for the objection to be heard by an independent person or body; andExample: The independent person or body could be a State or Territory tribunal which deals with acts of the kind concerned, for example, a mining warden where the act is the grant of a mining lease. (f) provide for judicial review of the decision to do the act; andExample: The judicial review could be by the Supreme Court of the State or Territory. (g) provide that, if the independent person or body hearing any objection as mentioned in paragraph (e) makes a determination upholding the objection, or that contains conditions about the doing of the act that relate to registered native title rights and interests, the determination must be complied with unless: (i) the Minister of the State or the Territory responsible for indigenous affairs is consulted; and (ii) the consultation is taken into account; and (iii) it is in the interests of the State or the Territory not to comply with the determination; and (h) if the act is of the kind mentioned in subparagraph 26(1)(c)(iii) (which deals with certain compulsory acquisitions)—confer on each claimant and body corporate procedural rights that are not less favourable than those they would have on the assumption that they instead held ordinary title to any land concerned and to the land adjoining, or surrounding, any waters concerned.Meaning of determination(5) In paragraph (4)(g): determination includes recommendation. in the interests of the State or the Territory includes: (a) for the social or economic benefit of the State or the Territory (including of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders); and (b) in the interests of the relevant region or locality in the State or the Territory.Requirement to be satisfied: compensation(6) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the alternative provisions comply with this subsection if, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister, they provide for compensation for the effect of the act on native title to be payable and for any dispute about the compensation to be determined by an independent person or body.Requirement to be satisfied: preservation of areas of significance(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the requirements of this subsection are complied with if, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Minister, a law of the Commonwealth, the State or the Territory provides, for the whole of the land or waters to which the alternative provisions relate, in relation to the preservation or protection of areas, or sites, that may be of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in accordance with their traditions.Different provisions for different kinds of land or waters(8) Laws of a State or Territory may make different provision under subsection (1) in relation to different kinds of land or waters.Note: In such a case, the Commonwealth Minister would need to make separate determinations under that subsection.Revocation of determination(9) If at any time the alternative provisions are amended so that they no longer comply as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b), the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) advise the State Minister or the Territory Minister concerned in writing of the fact; and (b) if, at the end of 90 days after doing so, the alternative provisions do not comply and subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii) do not apply—in writing, revoke the determination made under paragraph (1)(b); and (c) if: (i) at the end of 90 days after advising the State Minister or Territory Minister, the alternative provisions do not comply and the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that the State Minister or the Territory Minister is using his or her best endeavours to ensure that the alternative provisions will comply; and (ii) before the end of the 90 days, the Commonwealth Minister determined in writing that a further period should apply for the purposes of this paragraph; and (iii) at the end of the further period, the alternative provisions still do not comply; in writing, revoke the determination made under paragraph (1)(b).Note: A determination mentioned in subparagraph (c)(ii) is a disallowable instrument: see section 214.Exclusion of certain compulsory acquisitions(10) The alternative provisions do not apply to an act of the kind mentioned in subparagraph 26(1)(c)(iii) (which deals with certain compulsory acquisitions) if the act involves the acquisition of native title rights and interests in relation to land or waters in both an alternative provision area and an area that is not an alternative provision area.Regulations to make transitional provisions(11) The regulations may prescribe any modifications of this Act that are necessary to deal with transitional matters arising from the making, amendment or revocation of determinations under this section. [section 43A](H66) Schedule 1, item 9, page 116 (lines 27 to 29), omit "a leased or reserved area (as defined in subsection 43A(2)) and an area (the other area ) that is not a leased or reserved area", substitute "an alternative provision area (as defined in subsection 43A(2)) and an area (the other area ) that is not an alternative provision area". [section 43B]Note about Schedule 1, item 9: The heading to section 43B (page 116, lines 23 and 24) is replaced by the heading "Mining rights covering both alternative provision area and other area ". (H67) Schedule 1, item 9, page 117 (line 4), omit "leased or reserved area", substitute "alternative provision area". [section 43B](H68) Schedule 1, item 34, page 133 (lines 8 to 10), omit ", subsection 24KA(8), 24MD(7), 24NA(9), 26A(1), 26B(1) or 26C(2), paragraph 43(1)(b) or 43A(1)(b)", substitute "or (7)(a), subsection 24KA(8), 24MD(7), 24NA(9), 26A(1), 26B(1) or 26C(2), paragraph 43(1)(b), subparagraph 43(3)(c)(ii), paragraph 43A(1)(b), subparagraph 43A(9)(c)(ii)". [section 214](H69) Schedule 1, item 34, page 133 (line 16), omit "43A(6)", substitute "43A(9)". [section 214](H70) Schedule 1, item 42, page 138 (lines 16 to 18), omit the item, substitute:42 Paragraph 237(a)Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (a) the act is not likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of the community or social activities of the persons who are the holders (disregarding any trust created under Division 6 of Part 2) of native title in relation to the land or waters concerned; and [section 237](H71) Schedule 1, item 50, page 143 (lines 11 to 20), omit subsection (3), substitute:Areas in the Northern Territory(3) Subject to subsection (4), a particular area in the Northern Territory is a town or city if, as at 23 December 1996, it was: (a) gazetted as a town (other than the town of Darwin, Hatches Creek, Brocks Creek, Burrundie or Urapunga) under subsection 95(1) of the Crown Lands Act of the Northern Territory; or (b) the area in the Schedule to the Darwin Lands Acquisition Act 1945 of the Commonwealth; or (c) within a municipality constituted under section 29 of the Local Government Act of the Northern Territory. [section 251C](H72) Schedule 2, item 71, page 212 (line 25), omit "34A,". [section 207B](H73) Schedule 5, item 11, page 352 (line 8), omit "43A(8)", substitute "43A(11)". [item 11 of Schedule 5] Statutory access rights(H74) Schedule 1, item 9, page 120 (line 5), at the end of subsection 44C(1), add ", except in proceedings before the Federal Court or a recognised State/Territory body that are related to the making of an approved determination of native title.". [section 44C]Compensation(H75) Schedule 2, item 102, page 223 (before line 10), before paragraph (b), insert: (aa) to hear and determine applications under subsection 50(2) of that Act for determinations of compensation, where: (i) the amount of the compensation to which the applicant claims to be entitled is less than $100,000 or such other amount as is prescribed instead for the purposes of this paragraph; and (ii) at the time the hearing and determination takes place, one or more approved determinations of native title have been made in relation to the whole of the area concerned; [section 18AB of Federal Court Act](H76) Schedule 2, item 102, page 223 (after line 10), after subsection (2A), insert:(2B) If, in accordance with subsection (2A), Rules of Court are made delegating to the Judicial Registrars the powers of the Court to hear and determine applications under subsection 50(2) of the Native Title Act 1993 for determinations of compensation as mentioned in paragraph (2A)(aa), the Judges, or a majority of them, may, in respect of any such application, give such directions as they consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the application is determined as expeditiously and cheaply as possible and without unnecessary formality.(2C) Without limiting the directions that may be made, they may cover all or any of the following: (a) principles and procedures to be applied in hearing and determining the application; (b) referring any matter for mediation; (c) ensuring that the issues in dispute are identified as soon as possible and that the procedures to be applied, and the evidence that may be given, in the proceedings are limited to what is necessary to resolve those issues; (d) limiting the amount of costs of the proceedings that may be awarded against the claimant; (e) requiring some or all of the costs of the claimant to be paid by another party to the proceedings. [section 18AB of Federal Court Act]Claims process and sunset clause(H77) Schedule 5, item 18, page 355 (lines 14 to 17), omit the item. [item 18 of Schedule 5]Representative bodies(H78) Schedule 3, item 11, page 238 (lines 3 to 23), omit subsection (1), substitute:Commonwealth Minister may issue directions(1) The Commonwealth Minister may, by written instrument, issue directions requiring, or relating to, either or both of the following: (a) a former representative body returning documents and records, relating to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers in respect of its former area, to the person or persons who provided them to the body; (b) the former representative body allowing access to, giving or giving copies of documents and records held by the former representative body to a body (the replacement body ) that has become the representative body for all or part of the former representative body's former area, where the documents and records are reasonably necessary for the performance of the functions, or the exercise of the powers, of the replacement body.Directions take effect on the day on which they are issued.Limit on directions(2) Directions must not require the former representative body to allow access to, give or give copies of documents and records, of the kind mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) that relate to: (a) a claim in a claimant application or a compensation application; or (b) native title rights and interests that are the subject of a determination of native title;to the replacement body, unless the replacement body has been asked by the claimants to assist them in relation to the claim, or has been asked by the persons who have been determined to hold the native title rights and interests to assist them in relation to those rights and interests. [section 203FC](H79) Schedule 3, item 11, page 239 (after line 10), after section 203FC, insert:203FCA Representative body etc. to comply with wishes of traditional custodians(1) If: (a) a representative body, in performing its functions and exercising its powers; or (b) a former representative body (as defined in subsection 203FC(5)), in complying with directions in accordance with subsection 203FC(3);deals with traditional materials, or any information contained in them, the body must make all reasonable efforts to comply with the wishes of the traditional custodians of the traditional materials about the way in which the traditional materials or information is to be dealt with.Definitions(2) In this section: traditional custodian of traditional materials means a person who, according to the traditional laws and customs concerned, is responsible for the traditional materials. traditional materials means documents, records or other things that are of significance to Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders according to their traditional laws and customs. [section 203FCA]Registration test(H80) Schedule 2, page 200 (after line 9), after item 60, insert:60A After paragraph 186(1)(f)Insert: ; (g) a description of the native title rights and interests in the claim that: (i) the Registrar in applying subsection 190B(6); or (ii) a recognised State/Territory body in applying provisions equivalent to that subsection; considered, prima facie, could be established. [section 186](H81) Schedule 2, item 63, page 202 (after line 3), after subsection (3), insert:Amending Register where additional information provided(3A) If: (a) the Registrar accepts for registration a claim made in an application under section 63 or an amended application under subsection 64(4); and (b) in accordance with this section, the Registrar includes in the Register details of the claim and a description of the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests concerned; and (c) afterwards, but before a native title determination in relation to the application or amended application is made, the applicant provides to the Registrar further information relating to any native title rights and interests that were claimed in the application but whose details and description were not included in the Register; and (d) the Registrar considers that, if the information had been provided before the claim had been accepted for registration, the details and description would have been included in the Register;the Registrar must amend the Register to include the details and description. [section 190](H82) Schedule 2, item 63, page 202 (after line 29), at the end of subsection (1), add:Note: In the case of an amended application (under subsection 64(4)), the Registrar would be required to consider the claim in the amended application even if the Registrar had already accepted for registration the claim in the original application. In such a case, if the claim in the amended application were then accepted for registration, the Registrar would be required under subsection 190(3) to amend the Native Title Register to reflect the amendment. [section 190A](H83) Schedule 2, item 63, page 205 (line 22) to page 206 (line 28), omit subsections (5) to (10), substitute:Factual basis for claimed native title(5) The Registrar must be satisfied that the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist is sufficient to support the assertion. In particular, the factual basis must support the following assertions: (a) that the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area; and (b) that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests; and (c) that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.Prima facie case(6) The Registrar must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed in the application can be established.Note: If the claim is accepted for registration, the Registrar must, under paragraph 186(1)(g), enter on the Register of Native Title Claims details of only those claimed native title rights and interests that can, prima facie, be established. Only those rights and interests are taken into account for the purposes of subsection 31(2) (which deals with negotiation in good faith in a "right to negotiate" process) and subsection 39(1) (which deals with criteria for making arbitral body determinations in a "right to negotiate" process).Physical connection(7) The Registrar must be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group: (a) currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application; or (b) previously had and would reasonably have been expected currently to have a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters but for things done (other than the creation of an interest in relation to land or waters) by: (i) the Crown in any capacity; or (ii) a statutory authority of the Crown in any capacity; or (iii) any holder of a lease over any of the land or waters, or any person acting on behalf of such a holder of a lease.No failure to comply with section 61A(8) The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar must not otherwise be aware, that, because of section 61A (which forbids the making of applications where there have been previous native title determinations or exclusive or non-exclusive possession acts), the application should not have been made.No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title(9) The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar must not otherwise be aware, that: (a) to the extent that the native title rights and interests claimed consist of or include ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas—the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory wholly owns the minerals, petroleum or gas; or (b) to the extent that the native title rights and interests claimed relate to waters in an offshore place—those rights and interests purport to exclude all other rights and interests in relation to the whole or part of the offshore place; or (c) in any case—the native title rights and interests claimed have otherwise been extinguished (except to the extent that the extinguishment is required to be disregarded under subsection 47(2), 47A(2) or 47B(2)). [section 190B](H84) Schedule 2, item 63, page 208 (after line 29), after subsection (1), insert:Content of notice where failure to satisfy physical connection test(1A) If the only reason why the Registrar cannot accept the claim for registration is that the condition in subsection 190B(7) (which is about a physical connection with the claim area) is not satisfied, the notice must advise the applicant of the applicant's right to make an application to the Federal Court under subsection (2) and of the power of the Court to make an order in accordance with subsection (4) in respect of the application. [section 190D](H85) Schedule 2, item 63, page 209 (after line 7), at the end of section 190D, add:Court order where physical connection test failed(4) If, on an application under subsection (2) in a case to which subsection (1A) applies, the Court is satisfied that: (a) prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed in the application can be established; and (b) at some time in his or her lifetime, at least one parent of one member of the native title claim group had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters and would reasonably have been expected to have maintained that connection but for things done (other than the creation of an interest in relation to land or waters) by: (i) the Crown in any capacity; or (ii) a statutory authority of the Crown in any capacity; or (iii) any holder of a lease over any of the land or waters, or any person acting on behalf of such a holder of a lease;the Court may order the Registrar to accept the claim for registration.Opportunity to be heard(5) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Court must give to any person who is a party to the proceedings in the Court under Part 4 in relation to the application an opportunity to be heard in relation to the making of the order. [section 190D](H86) Schedule 5, item 11, page 348 (lines 8 and 9), omit "non-exclusive agricultural lease or a non-exclusive pastoral lease", substitute "freehold estate or a lease (other than a mining lease)". [item 11 of Schedule 5]Note about Schedule 5, item 11: The heading to subitem (4) (page 348, line 4) is altered by omitting "non-exclusive agricultural or pastoral lease " and substituting "freehold estate or non-mining lease ". Miscellaneous(H87) Schedule 2, page 149 (after line 10), after item 18, insert:18A At the end of Division 6 of Part 2Add:60AA Body corporate for Meriam people(1) If: (a) a body corporate is or becomes incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 ; and (b) all of the members of the body corporate are members of the Meriam people (see subsection (2)); and (c) one of the objects of the body corporate is to become a registered native title body corporate in relation to native title held by the Meriam people; and (d) a member of the Meriam people applies to the Federal Court for a determination under this section; and (e) the Court is satisfied that the applicant represents the Meriam people;then: (f) this Act applies as if the body corporate were a prescribed body corporate nominated under subsection 56(2) or 57(2) in relation to those native title holders; and (g) the Court may make a determination under section 56 or 57, in relation to that native title, as if the Court were doing so at the same time as making an approved determination of native title as mentioned in section 55; and (h) if the Court makes such a determination under section 56 or 57—the Native Title Registrar must enter the name and address of the body corporate on the National Native Title Register; and (i) while those details are on the Register, the body corporate is taken to be a registered native title body corporate for the purposes of this Act.(2) In this section: Meriam people means the people who were described by the High Court in its declaration in Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 as the Meriam people. [section 60AA](H88) Schedule 2, page 210 (after line 11), after item 70, insert:70A Paragraph 206(d)Omit "at the end of 2 years after the commencement of this Part", substitute "from time to time". [section 206]70B Section 207Omit "at the end of 5 years after the Parliamentary Joint Committee is first appointed", substitute "on 23 March 2004". [section 207]ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the government amendments. The agreement reached between the government and Senator Brian Harradine if given effect to by this House and by the Senate will at long last deliver to the people of Australia a resolution of an extraordinarily difficult issue. It will provide the basis of fairly resolving an issue which has caused doubt and uncertainty and which over a period of almost five years has engendered a deterioration and not an improvement in relations between indigenous people and other Australians.The amendments that we are now proposing to the parliament will clean up the native title mess that we inherited from the former government. The amendments that we are proposing to the parliament will deliver a greater degree of certainty and predictability to the farmers of Australia than any other alternative set of propositions which are achievable. They represent the culmination of several weeks of discussion between the government and Senator Harradine.I place on record my appreciation of the constructive approach adopted by Senator Harradine. I contrast his constructive approach with the negative approach adopted by the Australian Greens, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party on this issue. Senator Harradine was determined to see if he could achieve an agreement with me that was consistent with his deep commitment on a number of principles in this issue. It has been possible with goodwill on both sides for that to be achieved and it has been achieved in a way which is consistent with the integrity of the 10-point plan that I outlined to the Australian people in April and May of last year.The most important change made is the agreement we have reached for the removal of the right to negotiate in relation to claims over pastoral leases. That right to negotiate will now be substituted for, or replaced by, a state based regime that gives an equivalent procedural treatment to the claims of both indigenous people and other Australians. It represents a restoration of the principle that all Australians should be equal before the law. It removes the advantage that Labor wanted to give to one section of the Australian community over others and to the detriment of others.It has been our insistence from the very beginning that all Australians should be treated equally and that some should not have special rights, which has thus far meant that an agreement on this issue has not been possible. It has been the stubborn refusal of our opponents to embrace the principle of equality before the law for all Australians, which has meant that it needed an agreement between Senator Harradine and the government for this matter to be resolved. This outcome will deliver certainty, security and predictability. This outcome has been widely welcomed by the mining industry.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Members opposite scoff at the mining industry. The mining industry provides massive export income for this country. This issue has delayed mining investment in Australia. This issue has produced uncertainty in the mining industry. It is therefore barely surprising that the outcome negotiated two days ago has been widely welcomed by representatives of the Australian mining industry.Very importantly, also, the resolution of this dispute will bring long needed certainty and predictability to the farmers of Australia. It has been the concerns of the farming community of Australia that have been very much in our minds over the last 18 months. I am very pleased to say to the House that the commitment the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) and I made to the rural community of Australia at a very symbolic meeting in Longreach in Queensland in May 1997 has been honoured in full. They will be able to carry out their farming activities without concern and without interference, but they will do that in a way, and their security has been delivered in a way, that is consistent with the principles of native title laid down in the Mabo decision.I found it quite extraordinary that, in the wake of the agreement, some people who had initially said that the agreement adequately protected the interests of indigenous people turned almost 180 degrees and said that most of what had been achieved in the Mabo case had been wiped out by this agreement. Let me tell you that that is not true. As every person in this House knows, the original Mabo decision contemplated, in the eyes of most Australians, a situation whereby the grant of a pastoral lease would operate to extinguish native title. Most people believed after Mabo that it was only vacant crown land over which a native title claim could possibly be made. That situation remains the same. It is still possible to make a native title claim over vacant crown land and it is still possible to employ the right to negotiate in relation to vacant crown land.The post-Wik debate has largely been about the way in which we deal with the problems of native title interacting with pastoral leaseholds. We have sought to put beyond any doubt the possibility that, in relation to pastoral leaseholdings, you could have a situation where you gave the right to negotiate to indigenous Australians but you denied that equivalent right to other Australians. That raises a very important principle—the principle of the equality of treatment of all Australians before the law. It is not a bare abstraction. It is not a mere irrelevance. It goes very much to the way in which we see ourselves and our society. If you can support inequality before the law on that issue, then why don't you support inequality before the law on a range of other issues? The Labor Party have sought to ignore that. The Labor Party have sought, in the name of phoney claims of racism—and this debate has been characterised by a litany of irresponsible language emanating from the mouths of members of the Australian Labor Party—to raise the temperature of this debate. It is they who have accused those who have taken the view that we have taken of lacking compassion and sensitivity towards the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia.There are many people in the parties that sit with me on the government side of the chamber whose knowledge of, sensitivity towards and understanding of the culture and the aspirations of the indigenous people of Australia are equal to or far surpass the equivalent knowledge of many of those who sit opposite. This idea that those in the Labor Party hold some kind of monopoly of concern about the Aboriginal people of Australia is completely misplaced.I believe that the resolution of this issue is a very good day for Australia. There are no Australians of goodwill who wanted a double dissolution election fought principally on the native title bill. The people who are really disappointed are indeed many of our political opponents. They are the people who wanted this to be the principal issue in an election campaign. The whole of the Australian community is pleased that this matter has been resolved in an honourable way.The government did not want a double dissolution on the native title bill but we were not prepared, in order to avoid that double dissolution, to surrender our commitment to that great principle that all Australians should be equal before the law. If it were a choice between an election based on this legislation or surrendering our commitment to the equali ty of all Australians before the law, then indeed we would never have surrendered that principle because it is far too important a principle for any government to give away. But, fortunately, no such choice will be faced by the Australian people and no such choice was faced by the government because in the agreement that I was able to negotiate with Senator Harradine there has been an acceptance by him of the need for the right to negotiate over pastoral leases to be replaced by a state based regime that will treat all Australians equally. That is the great change that has been made. That is the great difference between the bill that came back to us in April from the Senate and the bill that we are now inviting the parliament to pass.There are other changes, but they pale into relative insignificance behind that particular change. That was the great issue at stake. If ever there was an issue of principle involved in a piece of legislation, it is that principle of equality of all Australians before the law.I am very happy to say that on a number of what some people would describe as largely technical issues there has been compromise and agreement reached between the government and Senator Harradine. It is important on an occasion like this to record the relative failure of the Native Title Act 1993 to deliver anything other than uncertainty and acrimony over the last five years. It has not delivered any benefits to the Aboriginal people of Australia. One of the cruel ironies of this whole issue is that the former government trumpeted to the world that this would be a charter of renewal and hope, and a charter for a better future for the Aboriginal people of Australia. I remember the former Prime Minister talking about how the native title bill was going to nourish the Labor Party for two generations. I remember all the flowery talk about what the native title bill was going to do for the Australian Labor Party. The Native Title Act as it now stands is a monument to the inability of the Australian Labor Party to treat all Australians equally. It succeeded in deepening the division, particularly in rural and regional areas of Australia, between Aboriginal Australians and other Australians because it engendered a sense of frustration and a sense of resentment. I am happy to say that, if the parliament is prepared to pass what is now being put before us, that indeed can be put behind us.This legislation has characteristics that remain unsatisfactory to different sections of the Australian community: no one section of the Australian community has got everything in the legislation that it would like to have had. But it does provide a legislative framework which is acceptable to the farmers, acceptable to the mining industry and fair to the indigenous people of Australia, and it also provides a reasonable basis for the operation by the Australian states of their land management responsibilities.In the course of these remarks, I want to thank in particular the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Richard Court, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for the very constructive approach that they have adopted towards resolving this issue. As you would all know, 82 per cent of the land mass of the state of Western Australia is now subject to native title claims. I was particularly struck by a remark that the Western Australian Premier made on radio yesterday morning when he contrasted the willingness of the government I lead to involve his state in consultation with the very dismissive, peremptory, get lost attitude adopted towards Western Australia by the former Labor government.Despite Western Australia's enormous dependence on the mining industry and the vast land area of Western Australia, that government's interests were treated with contempt but, worse, the interests of the people of Western Australia were treated with contempt by the former Keating Labor government. As a result of the cooperative, consultative approach that our government has adopted, it has been possible to reach an arrangement that is workable for the people of Western Australia and is workable for the mining industry of that state.Can I finally say to the parliament that this debate has now been going on for almost five years. Indeed, if you go back to the original Mabo decision, the issue has been in the public spotlight for probably seven or eight years. There is widespread support in the Australian community for the idea that we ought to have respect for and an understanding of the principle of native title. I do not support, and I do not believe anybody in the Liberal Party or the National Party in this parliament supports, a return to the principle of terra nullius. People do embrace the principle of native title enunciated in the Mabo case, but we want it defined, dealt with and enshrined in a way that is fair and workable to the rest of the Australian community.The tragedy of the last five years is that the goodwill which then existed between Aboriginal people and other Australians has been strained, dissipated and diluted by the endless delay, doubt and uncertainty engendered by the Native Title Act. The longer that went on, the more relations worsened and deteriorated. The longer this matter was left unresolved, the greater became the sense of resentment in rural Australia in relation to assistance that was given to indigenous people. The longer the delay went on, the easier it was for the fears of people to be exploited and played upon. Therefore, it was very much in Australia's interests that this matter be resolved on a proper basis.But it could only ever be resolved if that principle I enunciated at the beginning was respected, and that is that all Australians should be treated equally before the law. To have resolved this matter through betraying that principle would have been no resolution at all. To have resolved this issue by selling out the principle of equality before the law, which is what the Labor Party wanted to do, would have deepened the sense of division within the Australian community. It would have fed the paranoia which would be exploited by more extreme forces within the Australian political system. Those who sought to delay a resolution, those who sought to defend inequality of treatment under the law, were in fact seeking to perpetuate that sense of conflict and that sense of division within the Australian community.It took not the action of the Australian Labor Party—which had a vested interest in continued division—not the action of the Australian Democrats or the Australian Greens, but the action of Senator Brian Harradine, working in consultation with the government through goodwill, through a genuine commitment to the unity of the Australian people, and the action of this government to finally bring down the curtain on a sorry five-year saga of Labor failure and Labor division. Labor gave us the failed Native Title Act, Labor gave us the native title mess and, as in so many other areas, it has been left to the coalition to clean up a mess it inherited from the former Labor government.09:56:006045Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—What a statesmanlike address from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)! What a statesmanlike address from a narrow, bitter, partisan politician—that is what we have heard from him. I agree absolutely with one thing that the Prime Minister had to say at the outset of his speech, and that was that no person of goodwill wanted a double dissolution election. I agree absolutely with him on that. No person of goodwill wanted a double dissolution election on this issue, but for 10 months the Prime Minister did. For 10 months the Prime Minister wanted precisely that.Don't we remember him there on television, talking about extreme presentations for the issue. Talk about trying to get people alarmed, annoyed and upset about what might face them! Remember the discussions not ruling out a threat to your backyard? Remember the question: is freehold title under threat? Who was asking those questions? It was not some extreme party from the backblocks of Queensland or Western Australia but the Prime Minister of this nation who was asking those questions.Who remembers the leaning small tower of Pisa—the sort of model of the tower of Pisa on television with Kerry O'Brien—that was the Prime Minister trying to reach down for his map with a brown stain over 79 per cent of the country, as he leant down to try to pick up that map to bring it forth as part of his campaigning position for his double dissolution election?He wanted a double dissolution election, and then he discovered several things. The first thing he discovered when he wanted to go down that road of a double dissolution election was that the public had deserted him. Indeed, when Borbidge walked out in the Queensland campaign and said, `I'm going to fight this election on Wik,' he discovered that there were only two plans out there that had any political viability at all. One was the one-point plan being run by the One Nation Party, which was that all native title should cease. The other was the Labor Party's approach, which was that unless you had goodwill on all sides, and unless this matter was resolved with all sides happy and cheerful or at least accepting of it, you had no resolution at all. The public saw quite clearly there was no third way between those two.Of course, the first way—the way of the One Nation Party—is constitutionally impossible, however attractive it might be to some, and the way of the Labor Party is absolutely essential if we are not going to be back here revisiting this time and time again. So the public at least had a bit of sense out there about what was possible and what was not. But the Prime Minister himself still hoped. When he came out of that dreadful Queensland election result, for which he was largely personally responsible, he started on his old track on this again: ramping up the double dissolution on Wik.You will remember when he ran foul of it in April and started to have to retreat: he said, `No, Wik won't be there on the agenda. Even if we have a double dissolution on it, we won't really be talking about Wik.' By then he had worked out that he had a bit of a problem with it, but then he suddenly thought, `Well, at least I'd better ramp this up again because it might be something going for me in the bush.' Then it struck him like a silver bullet again as he was informed by his National Party colleagues from Queensland that he was confronted by complete disaster on this.All of a sudden Brian Harradine found that after seven or eight days of his putting out feelers with nobody coming back to him in return, Nick turned up. He turned up real quick! Nick turned up and said, `Let's get the heck out of here. Brian, give us something. Take this problem off our backs and let us pretend that we have actually got a solution to this.' That is exactly what happened.Out of this, I am afraid to say, we have a resolution of one thing, and one thing only. We have a resolution of the government's double dissolution problem on this issue—not the early election, they have another problem related to that, and that is the viability of the offsets for their tax package on the GST. They know darned well that spending substantial amounts on the surplus is not going to be viable when Treasury brings forward its additional estimates, or additional forecasts, on the basis of what is coming down the line. So they are now going to be panicked by their tax package into an early election. It has not saved them from an early election, but it has saved them from a double dissolution on this issue. That is all. It has not resolved this issue.Anybody who kids themselves that these 400 pages of amendments to a 130-page bill are actually going to resolve this issue for all time is a person who is regularly addicted to the triumph of hope over experience. There is absolutely no possibility that this bill will resolve this issue, not simply for its intrinsic lack of merit—which I will go into a bit later—but because there is so much doubt about the workability of it, so much doubt about the practicality of it, that we are going to have to come back and revisit it time and time again. That is why it is so essential to have all potential parties in agreement. I ask you: why is it that whenever we sit down to this we never have enough time to resolve the issue finally, we only have time to keep revisiting it? That is the problem with this. We never have enough time to resolve it, to bring all parties on board; we just have time to keep revisiting it.It really is quite extraordinary to talk about goodwill when the people you exclude from the negotiating process in this final phase of it are the people whose title is most affected. Whether or not the Aboriginal people should feel that their interests have been served by this, to not include them in this process was a political tactic that is completely irresponsible in terms of trying to get the goodwill behind it. Would any other titleholder be treated so?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Do you reckon television station owners applying for a television licence might get that sort of treatment? Do you think that the government might not have had a bit of a chat to somebody who might have an interest in the cross-media rules associated with the interaction between regulations for electronic media and for print media when an issue was being resolved as far as they were concerned? The Prime Minister wishes us to believe that he has approached this in a non-discriminatory way, when the only titleholders who have not been talked to in this community happen to be from the Aboriginal community.All of Australia knew that the Native Title Act, in the face of court decisions and practical experience, had to be overhauled. The problem was not the original act; there is a new court interpretation and it, therefore, has to be overhauled—not unusual. If a court makes a decision that differs from any particular act of parliament, the act has to be overhauled—nothing particularly surprising about that.The Prime Minister's efforts to frame a response to this need, however, have failed. Despite a constructive and cooperative approach from the Senate and from indigenous leaders, he could not get it right. But his bullying tactics and threats to our social fabric through a race charged double dissolution election have captured him the one Senate vote that he needed. He now seems destined to get this unworkable bill through parliament, but it will go through without that reservoir of goodwill that is required for the workability of the system. In excluding key stakeholders from meaningful negotiations, he has ensured that they have not only no ownership of the outcome but also a deep suspicion of and hostility towards it. He has delivered a flawed package, ripe for legal challenge, and, in the absence of acceptance and goodwill, vulnerable to legal sabotage. The disaffected and alienated stakeholders will be as ready to work their way around this legislation as they will be to work their way through it.The rule of law—the fair and equitable application of the common law—delivered indigenous Australia a measure of justice in the Mabo decision. The decision that gave indigenous Australians faith in the Australian legal system had different effects on the coalition. At first, they went into denial, attacked the legitimacy of the High Court and did all in their power to block a legislative regime to deal with the complex issues arising from it. And, when they got their hands on the levers of power in government, they proceeded to do all they could to shape legislation that would wind it back. They have done so without any regard for the constitutional underpinnings of the existing Native Title Act.Despite having to proceed in a discriminatory manner to validate titles issued after the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the 1993 act retained its character as a special measure for the benefit of indigenous Australians by including measures of clear and positive benefit to them. First in significance amongst these measures, which validates all native title acts, both this and the previous one—if it is to be valid—is the right to negotiate. Compromise that, and you instantly undermine the constitutionality of this bill.In radically winding back that right in the Native Title Amendment Bill, the government has placed the constitutionality of the amended act, in its totality, at risk. The atmosphere of suspicion and ill will that they have created guarantees that such legal challenges will be swift and numerous—far from resolving this issue. Across a range of cases, most recently the Newcrest decision, the High Court has set down markers to indicate how a Commonwealth government must discharge its constitutional responsibility to pay compensation on just terms when acquiring the property rights of any Australian individual or company. The markers include that proper notice must be given, substantive and procedural fairness must be followed and any quantum effect must reflect the full range of loss.In its legislated validation, in its legislated extinguishment and in its arbitrary removal of property rights established in law, this bill is particularly vulnerable on this front, and the points of potential challenge are scattered throughout its provisions. Equally, in downgrading the procedural rights available for those working within the legislation, the government has created a renewed incentive for claimants to pursue their cases in the lengthy and costly forums of the common law. The removal of the right to negotiate over land covered by historic, long defunct leases was one of the prices of this deal before us. It follows that claimants to vacant crown land that was once the subject of a lease in the distant past are an obvious group this government will antagonise and drive from the system.Let us contemplate that: where they no longer have the right to negotiate over historic leases but where they have a very clear connection with the land, what will they do? Of course they will go down the road of common law. It may take 10 years to settle, but therein lies the opportunity. Under common law you have a right to injunct, so any poor devil trying to set up a tourism facility, any person trying to establish a mine, and so on, at a place which has a historic lease arrangement associated with it will now not have to face the process of going through a timely mechanism through Native Title Act procedures but face years of litigation in the High Court as people are encouraged to assert their rights by common law.Well done! What a magnificent achievement on the government's part. There will be compensation, it will be large and it will be obtained from those who want to pursue that matter, but it is there without any goodwill at all, it is there without any reasonable mechanism to do things in a timely fashion. With a high unlikelihood of survival of substantial native title rights to such land, why would they settle for the meagre comfort of the new act?Developers will find a very real difference between the veto that a common law injunction can deliver as distinct from the timelimited process of a right to negotiate. Common law cases such as Mabo or Wik can drag on for a decade or more, as the Mabo case in fact did. There will be interesting and expen sive problems for the states and the courts to sort out when there are common law claims and claims through the state system over the same land.Another set of conundrums is to be found in this hybrid system, in this hybrid legislation. Exactly how will this bill achieve an articulation between the operation of the Federal Court and the state regimes residing inside government departments? How will they refer matters from one to the other? Has one the power to instruct the other? If a Commonwealth minister and parliament determine that a particular state regime is consistent with the Commonwealth legislation this year, what mechanisms exist to ensure that they remain consistent, both substantively and procedurally, in the future? Will there be any audited oversight? How much will it cost? Who will pay?Another thing needs to be understood, and it goes back again to goodwill. The Prime Minister, still trying to tweak that tail of the racial tiger a bit, yesterday pointed out that 82 per cent of Western Australia is subject to claim and asked how, in the light of that fact, I would manage to explain my opposition to his bill back in Western Australia. He implied by this that somehow the passage of this bill would mean that that would no longer be the case under this legislation. Mr Tuckey, guess how much of Western Australia, after this bill is passed, will be subject to claim? Eighty-two per cent. Eighty-two per cent will be subject to claim, but with no goodwill associated with it.It is true that the changed claims which we support, and are supported by most Aboriginal people, will in at least some cases mitigate the plethora of multiple claims that have been put in place—multiple claims, I might say, in the Western Australian context, which have been actively encouraged by some powerful members of the Liberal Party not unadjacent to the Premier's family. But the 700 or so claims already in the system will not just go away. There will still be a requirement to deal with those claims. And those claims are the fundamental problem now.The horse is out. The gate is being bolted, but the horse is out, fleeing the paddock. There is going to have to be a requirement to do it, and how do you do it? How do you deal with these things? It is possible to deal with them. It is possible to get them rationalised. It is possible to bring them within the ambit of this threshold test. It is possible to do all of that. But what do you require? You require goodwill. You require those current claimants to be prepared to give up their claims. Do you think they are going to, after this bill has gone through? Do you think the problems that have been created in the Goldfields are going to go away simply because there is opportunity voluntarily effectively to do it under this bill? You have got to be joking.Of course, this bill grants procedural rights only to registered claimants. So what do you reckon they are going to do? They are going to register—into a system already at breaking point. It provides an open invitation to register as many claims, as broadly based as possible, immediately. I speak here in particular of the kin of the stolen generation, the kin of those locked off their land. This so-called compromise deal says that they can gain registration only through the Federal Court and that such a process could take well over a year. If they wait for notice of mining or development on their land before lodging a claim, the state based processes will be long finished and the development under way before they are ever registered.They are therefore given every incentive to lodge blanket claims right now into a system that the government was supposed to free up. What a blow for workability! Well done, team! Well done! A whole category of applicants must now march, as a first option, into the litigation we were supposed to be trying to avoid. And they will pour into an already overloaded system. We want to come out of all of this at the point we started off.The Prime Minister wants me to say what we will do about this. I am afraid that I will have to tell the Prime Minister that the task for me has not changed. The litigation associated with this bill will be substantial, will be widespread, and will be forthcoming soon. It will come forth against a background of completely collapsed goodwill.Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister chose personally to exclude indigenous Australians from consideration in the final deliberations on this matter. I am afraid to say that he will not get from them any form of goodwill associated with this at all. As those legal cases roll through, as the system bogs down, as the massive pressure is there on the Aboriginal claimants to make their claims as rapidly as possible, as it bogs down without goodwill and nobody retreats from the claims that are already there, as it bogs down as one clan group of a particular skin decides to take this road and another clan group of the same skin decides to go through the common law road, as these things happen and there is one collapse after another around the country—as one piece of bogging down after another around the country takes place on this—do you think it will not be back here again? Do you think we will not be sitting down here talking about all these issues again in a couple of years time?But when we do, Australian people will need a government that will be able to talk to all three parties, because they will realise that all the finality here was not any finality about the issue but a finality about the Prime Minister's problem. That is all the finality that there is here.And they will not be very cheerful about the reputation of the Prime Minister who put them in that position. They will not be cheerful as unworkabilities are built upon unworkabilities. They will absolutely require a government that is capable of a bit of statesmanship about all this—a bit of unity about all this; a bit of a recognition that goodwill is central to all this; a bit of decent treatment of all Australians, not just some. People who think that they have a covenant with all Australians are required here, not people who think they have got a covenant with just a few of them. (Time expired)10:16:006049Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I rise in support of this motion. On 9 April this year this House considered amendments made by the Senate to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . The House rejected 109 of the amendments and voted to lay the bill aside. At that time there was a significant stalemate between the two houses of this parliament. The continuing failure of the Senate to resolve the uncertainty by passing the bill has not been a good thing for this country.It was for this reason that the government said that it was always willing to consider proposals that would break the impasse without compromising the principles reflected in the 10-point plan that it had brokered last year. The government is pleased that through extensive negotiations with Senator Harradine the stalemate has been broken. The government believes that the agreement that has been reached is in the best interests of the nation.Let me say at the outset that it is not surprising that the recognition of native title in the 1992 Mabo decision has thrown up challenging legal, political and social issues for Australia. It was a defining moment in Australia's legal history, as well as a momentous event for indigenous Australians. The previous government responded to Mabo in its 1993 Native Title Act.The coalition always had serious reservations about the act. It believed it was unworkable in many respects and failed to address many of the outstanding issues. This has proved to be the case. It has failed to deliver outcomes to indigenous Australians. Over 780 claims have been lodged under the act, but in five years there have been only two determinations of native title. In his sarcastic approach to the amendments that are now proposed, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) failed to note that fact. The current act has failed to deliver certainty to governments. It has failed to deliver certainty to those in industry who rely on proper land management to provide them with a secure title. As I said, it has delivered only two determinations of native title.The coalition was elected to government with a policy of amending the Native Title Act to improve its workability. At the same time, it gave a commitment to respect native title as recognised in Mabo. In June 1996 I introduced amendments primarily addressing the implications of the High Court decisions in Brandy and Waanyi. Further amendments were announced in October 1996. These related to the right to negotiate and representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies.On 23 December 1996 the Wik decision was handed down. The decision was contrary to the general assumption that leases extinguish native title, an assumption that the parliament acted on in enacting the Native Title Act, as the preamble clearly shows. It also threw into sharp contrast the failure of the Native Title Act to adequately deal with the relationship between coexisting native title and other rights.Wik demanded a mature and considered national legislative response, one that engaged all of the stakeholders. Without that response, the uncertainties arising from Wik could be solved only on a case by case basis, which is no solution at all. This very scenario was expressly adverted to by Justice Kirby, a member of the Wik majority. The bill and the amendments that the government will be moving present a clear legislative response to Wik and the other outstanding problems affecting the workability of the current act. It is a response which this parliament, as the elected representative of all Australia, should embrace.Some have threatened to challenge the validity of the bill. Let me remind this House that in 1993 the High Court upheld the Native Title Act as a valid exercise of the race power. It did so on the basis that the act protects native title, a right held by members of particular races, by imposing conditions which must be satisfied for actions to extinguish or otherwise affect native title. This basic principle is not altered by the bill. The government is confident that the act as amended by this bill will survive constitutional challenge, but the threat of a challenge is not a reason to delay the passage of the bill any longer.Let me now outline the primary objectives of the bill as it will be amended in line with this motion. It will provide a system for making and determining native title applications that are constitutionally secure while also recognising the value of mediation in resolving matters in dispute between the parties. The bill will ensure that actions taken over leased land between the commencement of the Native Title Act in 1994 and the Wik decision are not invalid because of the legitimate, albeit erroneous, assumption that all native title had been extinguished. The bill will bring a greater level of certainty for land that is or has been the subject of a grant of exclusive possession or other rights wholly inconsistent with native title by confirming that native title has been extinguished.What acts can be done over land where native title might coexist with other interests will be clarified by adding additional categories of future acts that are valid. The bill also re-enacts in substantially the same form the freehold test for acts which do not fall into these other categories. If native title does not exist over an area because it has been abandoned, surrendered or extinguished, then it is not an issue that needs to be considered. Activities in such areas can take place without the need to consider compliance with the Native Title Act. They would not be future acts because that expression requires an effect on native title.The Native Title Amendment Bill will ensure that, on pastoral and agricultural leases where native title might coexist, lessees can carry out those primary production activities that they could validly have done under the terms of their lease as at 31 March 1998 without any interference from native title holders or claimants. They will also be able to be granted permits to do such activities and to carry on grazing activities and to obtain water in nearby off-farm areas. These provisions reflect the Wik decision that the rights of a lessee prevail over inconsistent native title rights.The ability of a lessee to renew a lease is also confirmed. However, it is important to note that these provisions expressly do not extend to the conversion of a pastoral lease where native title coexists, to a freehold or other title conferring exclusive possession. In the absence of a pre-existing legally enforceable right of renewal, the only way that freehold could be granted would be with the agreement of the native title holders or after the compulsory acquisition of their rights. This is the current position under the act.At the same time, the bill will protect any existing traditional access rights of registered native title claimants to pastoral lease land while the claims are being determined. The government has provided for a range of legally certain and comprehensive agreements with registered native title holders, registered claimants and representative bodies. These agreements are an alternative to litigation and can address all sorts of issues that emerge as a result of a claim being made or even the possibility of native title existing. Acts covered by registered agreements will be valid and, in the case of previous acts, can alter the effect on native title that otherwise applies for the validation of intermediate period acts.The bill ensures that representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bodies are more effective, efficient and accountable to those they represent, those they deal with and the government that assists them financially. Our amendments allow for the special statutory right to negotiate to apply only over those areas where it was originally thought to apply and only where claimants have a reasonable prospect of establishing the native title rights they assert through a strengthened registration test. The right to negotiate was originally thought to apply only over vacant crown land. The possibility that native title might coexist with other rights as exemplified in Wik requires a modification of the right to negotiate where third party rights are involved.States and territories will be able to establish their own systems to operate over land that is or was covered by a freehold or a lease or is or was the subject of a reservation or proclamation under which the land was to be used for a public purpose. Where a state or territory meets the standards set out in the bill, its system will displace the right to negotiate. The standards relate essentially to what pastoralists and others receive in similar circumstances, including notification of claimants and holders; the right to object; consultation about access and ways to minimise the effect of the act on native title; the hearing of objections by an independent body such as a mining warden's court; the making of a determination by such a body that can only be overridden after consultation with the relevant minister with responsibility for indigenous affairs and where it is in the state or territory interest; the provision of compensation; and the existence of adequate legislative protection for sites of particular significance. These modifications to the right to negotiate also give back to states and territories their primary role in relation to land and resource management.I wish to briefly make particular mention of a number of other amendments the government now moves and which were important in the agreement reached with Senator Harradine. The position under the bill whereby future acts compromising compulsory acquisitions for infrastructure and compulsory acquisitions and mining, which includes quarrying, in towns and cities outside the right to negotiate will be retained. However, where a future act comprising a compulsory acquisition is for the purpose of conferring rights on third parties and where a future act involves a mining title granted for the purpose of infrastructure associated with mining, registered native title holders and claimants will have rights of consultation with the other relevant parties and objection to an independent body similar to the alternative processes under new section 43A.Amendments to proposed section 26D will ensure that renewals of mining leases do not have to go through the right to negotiate unless the renewal is for a longer period or confers rights that were not conferred by the earlier lease. The provision for early ministerial intervention in the right to negotiate process before a negotiation period has run its course will be removed. However, there will still be provision for ministerial intervention where certain conditions are satisfied if arbitration is proceeding too slowly.The strengthened registration test will ensure that those dealing with registered claimants, for example in the context of an indigenous land use agreement or under the right to negotiate or state or territory arrangements on pastoral lease land, know that the claim has real merit. It will include a require ment that the registrar be satisfied that at least one member of the claim group currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with the area under claim. If registration is denied on this ground, the Federal Court can order registration where it is satisfied that prima facie the claim can be established and the parent of the member of the group had physical access which would have continued if they were not locked out or removed at some stage in the past.Subdivision I deals with the renewal and extension of leases and licences including for a longer term or in perpetuity. The amendments provide that where the lease being renewed is a non-exclusive pastoral or agricultural lease it cannot be done for a longer period without first consulting with the registered native title holders and claimants. However, the lessee need not be involved in the consultations, and they do not amount to a right to negotiate.In the case of previous non-exclusive possession acts such as non-exclusive pastoral leases, the bill will continue to state that the rights of the lessee prevail. However, the bill will no longer itself provide for the extinguishment of native title by those inconsistent rights. Rather, it will say that those rights are suspended and extinguished only if that is the position of common law.Finally, I should draw the attention of the House to proposed new section 7. Section 7 deals with the relationship between the Native Title Act 1993, including as amended by this bill, and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Its effect was considered by the High Court in the Native Title Act case in 1995. The court held that the effect of section 7 was to ensure that the Racial Discrimination Act continued to operate outside the subject area of the Native Title Act. The court also held that:. . . the general provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act must yield to the specific provisions of the Native Title Act . . . [which] prescribes specific rules governing the adjustment of rights and obligations over land subject to native title and s7(1) cannot be construed as intending to nullify those provisions.The amended clause is intended to clarify any confusion over the operation of section 7 by replicating in legislation the High Court decision. It is not intended to modify, reverse or undo the effect of the High Court decision. Accordingly, although new section 7(1) states that the Native Title Act is to be `read and construed subject to the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act', the effect of this provision is explained by and limited to the matter set out in subsection (2)—that is, the Racial Discrimination Act will apply to powers and functions conferred or authorised by the Native Title Act. For example, the Native Title Registrar must not engage consultants and staff in a way that adversely discriminates on the basis of race.The Racial Discrimination Act will also be relevant to construing the meaning of any ambiguous terms in the Native Title Act. But that is the extent to which the Native Title Act is to be read and construed as subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. In particular, as the High Court said, the Racial Discrimination Act cannot affect the validity of an act that is valid under the Native Title Act.It is now more than two years since I first introduced amendments to the Native Title Act into this House and it is more than 18 months since Wik. In this time, the government has engaged in an exhaustive process of consulting with all interested parties before coming up with a package that best serves the overall national interest. The time for consultation is now over. The delay that has already occurred has been damaging to the economic and social fabric of our great and diverse nation. It is time for this parliament to resolve once and for all the uncertainties and frustrations that have been felt by all parties. The government is confident that the Senate will support this bill when next it considers it. When it does, it will serve to enhance the existing opportunities that are available for all Australians to advance together. I commend the motion to the House.10:31:006053Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I think there is at least one issue on which all of us in this House can agree at the outset and that is that the Australian community wants the native title issue fixed. There is no doubt, from all the available anecdotal and opinion poll evidence, that the people want that above all else. They want appropriate legislation passed, they want an end to the strife and the turmoil which has surrounded this issue. But the question we have to ask about this fix, this purported solution, now before us is whether it really is a solution or whether too high a price has been paid to avoid the double dissolution for which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has been trawling for a year but which he now, since the Queensland debacle, desperately wants to avoid. Will this legislation give us the certainty and workability we need? Will it give us, as well as that, the justice that is so necessary if that goodwill is to be generated which is, in itself, a crucial ingredient in making the whole process workable.The government refused to accept the bill in the form in which it emerged from the Senate in April. It then adopted an absolutely immoveable position on four key issues: the threshold test, the sunset clause, the application of the Racial Discrimination Act and the question of the right to negotiate on pastoral leases. The Labor opposition argued at the time, as we still do, that the government's position on these issues then was wholly unreasonable. The question for us now is whether the government's position is any more reasonable. I am afraid I have to say that, as much as we had hoped otherwise, in a number of significant respects it frankly is not.I will explain the opposition's position by going through each of those four points and seeing where we now are. On the threshold test, first of all—that is to say, the conditions that have to be satisfied before a native title claim can be registered and before it can give rise to a right to negotiate—the Labor Party has accepted from the outset that a tough threshold test is necessary and desirable. It is crucial that we end the so-called paper claims once and for all and that the right to negotiate in future is exercised only by claimants to native title who do have a reasonable chance of eventually being recognised as genuine native title holders. But we also argued in April that the threshold test could and should have included a capacity for children of the stolen generation and victims of locked gates practices to have their claims registered, notwithstanding that there had been lacking—perhaps for a generation—a direct physical connection with the land in question.The government has now made a partial concession to extend claimant status to these situations, but there is a very nasty little sting in the tail about the provisions which accomplish this—attention was drawn to them by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley)—and that is that this application can be achieved only by a separate Federal Court application; it is not a matter of simply extending the criteria that are applied by the registrar at the ordinary application and registration stage. So what we now have in all of this is a severe additional procedural hurdle that will constitute, obviously, another significant obstacle to bona fide native title claimants; it will create another significant opportunity for legal minefield juggling, another significant opportunity for litigation lawyers, and particularly in the context of the interface of these provisions with the right to negotiate provisions that will still continue to apply, at least on vacant crown land. There will be, simply and frankly, an unholy litigation mess quite often generated in this context. As the Leader of the Opposition said, for a government that is purporting to make the whole situation more workable, more credible, more effective, this is just absolutely leading with its chin. Although it seems, on the face of it, to be a step forward to have this extension of the threshold test, frankly there is no occasion for joy in the way in which that particular provision has now been put before us.As to the sunset clause, this has at last been deleted from the legislation. But I have to say the government cannot claim to have been especially statesmanlike in making this concession. This was always the least credible and plausible of the government's positions, as has been privately acknowledged from the outset. It has always been acknowledged that the sunset clause would not have inhibited the pursuit of common law claims but simply ensured that the much more expeditious statutory procedures were not applicable. That, in turn, would simply have triggered an avalanche of ambit claims before the sunset date finally applied. It was always a nonsense, it remains a nonsense and I am glad to see that it has been removed; but please do not ask us to gracefully congratulate you on its removal.As to the question of the application of the Racial Discrimination Act, all that has happened since April is that an interpretive footnote put into the bill from the opposition's motion in April has now been incorporated as a subclause of the bill itself. While it is essentially a lawyer's argument as to where the language is better located, I simply say that this should not have been a show stopper in April and it is obviously not a show stopper now.This brings us to the key issue: the right to negotiate on pastoral leases. This has been, from the outset, the key point of difference between the government and the opposition and the government and Aboriginal representatives because it has been clear from the outset that it is this issue, above all others, on which the Prime Minister did not want to see Aboriginal native title holders having any rights—procedural or otherwise—that were not available to pastoralists, even though pastoralists' property interests were, are and always have been completely different as a matter of law and completely differently historically based.The accommodation that the government has now reached with Senator Harradine on this issue, in our judgment, guts and fillets the right to negotiate on pastoral leases to the point of unacceptability. It is the aspect of the amendments before us about which we are far and away most critical. It is certainly that aspect of this legislation on which we will be concentrating our opposition in the Senate. But I do hasten to add that when we have had a further opportunity to look at a number of other details in this legislation it is quite likely that we will be moving other amendments as well.The right to negotiate was introduced as a statutory right into the original Native Title Act in order to give native title holders and also native title claimants who had a reasonable prospect of being determined eventually to be native title holders appropriate redress when their native title rights were affected by compulsory acquisition or by developmental activity, especially mining. As incorporated into the 1993 act, the right to negotiate did not involve a right to veto because it was absolutely capable of being overridden in the national interest by the federal minister. But what this provision did do was deal the native title holders very effectively into the play. It gave them an opportunity to negotiate often quite far-reaching schemes and arrangements of compensation and redress with mining interests, often involving community development projects and employment guarantees, rather than just cash payments.As we have frequently acknowledged, the practical application of that right to negotiate, in the way in which things have worked out since 1993, has been causing some real problems, not least in Western Australia and Queensland. I have never been in any doubt about that. I have frankly acknowledged it and I hope the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) will recognise that. Some of those problems were always capable of fairly simple procedural remedies and some of those remedies are incorporated in the present legislation and they are uncontroversial.But the truth of the matter is that the biggest problems have been caused by court decisions making it possible for claims which had no reasonable chance of ultimate success to be nonetheless registered and to trigger an enforceable right to negotiate. It has been quite possible for claims to be registered and for rights to negotiate to be generated without those claims having any real chance of success at all. That is the main reason why the Labor Party has been always willing to cooperate in ensuring the early passage of amendments solving, in particular, the threshold test problem and in setting some genuine hurdles right at the outset which would limit the scope of people to claim a right to negotiate if they did not in fact have a reasonable chance of eventually establishing native title status.The original act made no distinction between vacant crown land and other areas in which native title applied so far as the right to negotiate is concerned. When the Wik case confirmed that native title continued to exist on pastoral leases there was accordingly no doubt that the right to negotiate continued to be available on pastoral leases until such time as it was knocked over by legislation. Removing that right by legislation, knocking it over by legislation, is exactly what the government, with Senator Harradine's cooperation, is now effectively doing. It is doing it by making available to the states an alternative regime for native title holders on pastoral leases which amounts to no more than the functional equivalent of the pastoralists' present right to seek compensation for disturbance.There was some initial confusion as to whether this new provision 43A really did reduce the right to negotiate to insignificance. I notice that Senator Harradine's lawyers have been busily telling anyone who would listen that there still are all the key elements of the right to negotiate buried away there in the text of 43A. I have to say that any close scrutiny of this particular provision makes it clear that the removal of the right to negotiate or the reduction of it to pale weenie status is what has in fact been accomplished by this draft. The title of the clause is `Exception to the right to negotiate'. The objections and consultations and determinations that native title holders can seek are all built around the concept of minimising the impact upon their rights and interests of the mining activity in question.The extended definition of those rights and interests in section 39 is not applicable here. The independent body which determines objections here can be, and the legislation makes this clear, a state mining warden. In any event, there is an override power, at the end of the day, vested in the state government if it is in the interests of the state not to comply with that determination. What we have in this legislation is the death of 1,000 legislative cuts so far as the right to negotiate on pastoral leases is concerned.What is the reason for retaining the right to negotiate on pastoral leases? There are three elements, and let me quickly spell them out. In the first place there is no reason for pasto ralists to be upset, because whatever rights indigenous people might enjoy under this regime the pastoralists' existing rights are not diminished one iota, not a zero sum gain—nobody is benefiting at their expense. Secondly, the point ought to be made that the right to negotiate is available uncontroversially in relation to vacant crown land. The real matter in issue is not whether there is a case for extending that to pastoral leases but rather whether there is a case for not extending it to pastoral leases given the status of those leases as essentially grazing, grass and water leases which do not involve exclusive possession and which, as the High Court has made clear, do allow in every other way for the coexistence of rights comfortably together.But the most important argument from everyone's point of view is that unless the right to negotiate is retained there are real doubts about whether this whole legislative package can survive an attack in the courts on constitutional grounds. The Hindmarsh Island case left wide open the question of whether race power based legislation must operate to the net benefit of indigenous people. Because there are already a great many provisions in this legislative package which represent disadvantage or negative benefit to native title holders, not least those validating past extinguishment and the so-called intermediate period acts which are validated in the present bill, it is necessary in our judgment and the judgment of many lawyers to have a balancing provision of the kind that is involved in the right to negotiate to bring the legislation back to constitutional credibility.Might I just say that how one sees and evaluates this issue depends essentially on the perspective from which one starts. I think the perspective which you do have to look at it from is essentially that which has been so well articulated on so many occasions by Noel Pearson—that is, we really are down to the last slice of damper so far as native title rights are concerned. They originally occupied and owned the whole of this country. They now have no rights whatsoever to any part of this country which has been vested in anyone by freehold. They have no rights whatever to any part of the country which has been vested in anyone by virtue of exclusive leasehold. In the case of pastoral leases, they retain coexisting rights and interests but only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the rights and interests of the pastoralists themselves. There are a number of other specific rights and interests that have been extinguished or modified.There really is not a great deal left on the table to start with. It really is unconscionable that a government should be so insensitive under these circumstances to the legitimacy and the morality and the justice of those claims as this government has been from the outset. We continue to strongly believe that it is appropriate both as a matter of justice and law for the right to negotiate to continue to fully apply. We will continue to maintain our position on this issue in the parliament, not because we want to deny the passage of this legislation and trigger a double dissolution—of course we do not—but because we do not want to abandon the basic principles and the basic position of decency for which we have always stood.If this legislation is passed we fully expect—we certainly do not hope—that there will be a major mess remaining for us to clean up when we return to government, and we will still have to do what the Leader of the Opposition said we will have to do—that is, get all the parties seated round the table to hammer out a solution which is genuinely acceptable to everyone on all the key issues. The tragedy is that that course was not followed here. Not everyone was consulted and brought into the process. I have to say that the patronising, dismissive and contemptuous way in which this issue has been handled in process terms, like so many other matters involving racial sensitivity in this country, is one of the most defining characteristics of the Howard government. On this native title issue, like on so many others, the Howard government has left a legacy of which neither it nor this country can ever be proud. (Time expired)10:46:006056Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I note, in particular, two points from the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans). Firstly, he said that there should be another meeting, another summit, another additional process of further delay. We have been dealing with this legislation for two years now—most recently on Thursday, 9 April in this House and again today, but this time there is a difference. I am very confident this legislation will pass both houses of parliament and advance the whole process.Secondly, I note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the right to negotiate is, in effect, gutted and filleted by this legislation. I will have more to say about that in a moment. It does provide a fair way forward. Australia and all Australians have an equal way forward in respect of native title as a direct consequence of this legislation—the outcome negotiated by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and Senator Harradine. I would like to commend their roles and, indeed, the role of the huge backup teams in relation to this.I will take this detail to Longreach tomorrow so that people can know the details directly. It was at Longreach that one of the most important meetings took place, at the behest the federal President of the National Party, Don McDonald, the UGA and others to interface directly and listen to what people were saying. That includes people right across the board.In this legislation and in the Wik outcome we are protecting the integrity and the principles of the 10-point plan. Yes, we have altered one matter, and that is in respect of the sunset timing clause, and other aspects which I acknowledge are an improvement. I want to turn to those improvements. From that two-year rush that was alluded to by some there are good additional measures in this legislation.Firstly, there are amendments on the matter of water. These amendments clarify that the term `management or regulation' in so far as that term is used in the context of managing or regulating water includes granting access to water or taking water, for example, by granting irrigation rights or permits. This is a very important addition to this bill. It is, if you like, in anticipation of whatever decision the judge might make with regard to the Yorta Yorta claim of a large chunk of the Murray Valley and elsewhere. It is absolutely the right that irrigation—the processes of irrigation and the processes of internal farm irrigation, quite apart from governmental scheme irrigation in the electorate of the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), the electorate of Farrer, which I represent, and others—can proceed in an orderly way. This is why irrigators, in particular, are wanting the 10-point plan through. The water amendments are H21 and H22.Secondly, amendment H17 provides that certain future acts permitting primary production activities to take place on non-exclusive agricultural and non-exclusive pastoral leases are valid. The additional requirement is that the future act could have been validly done at any time before 31 March 1998 if native title had not existed. This does not require that the future act was in fact done before that date; it is enough if it could have been done. Clause H18 provides further in respect of that.In other words, primary producers and farmers have the capacity to push forward with their legitimate activities on leasehold. I discussed aspects of this with John Cobb yesterday and again this morning. I also spoke with other interlocutors from the western division of New South Wales and elsewhere. Those agricultural leases in the western division, the GHPLs—the grazing homestead pastoral leases—throughout central Queensland and other exclusive tenure categories will be confirmed by this. On the conversion of leases from a term lease for a number of years to a perpetual lease, the legislation provides that there will be a process and a consultation, but it does not provide that there will be a full right to negotiate with regard to that particularity, and that is an important aspect as well.I commend the motion and the legislation now before the parliament. I hope the legislation has a speedy passage through the House of Representatives this day and through the Senate next week. Then all Australians can move this agenda forward in a way which is fair, in a way which stacks up, in a way which is defensible and in a way which addresses so many of the concerns that have been expressed over the last two years.10:51:006058Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—We are not here to simply cheer or boo at the outcome of discussions between the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and Senator Harradine. We must visit again the totality of the Native Title Amendment Bill and judge its worth. The Harradine-Howard compromise is an imperfect addition to a fatally flawed amendment bill. It was born of bad process and misguided intentions. In its totality, the amendment bill remains obnoxious: 400 pages of amendments to an act of 127 pages. So much for the Prime Minister's promise of workability. It will be a lawyers' picnic.The High Court's Mabo decision was a watershed in our history. We became the last of the nations with legal systems in the common law tradition to recognise the prior existing titles and their attendant rights of our indigenous peoples. The Native Title Act 1993 was a swift and honourable response to that discovered reality. The Keating government took up the difficult challenge of integrating the reality of native title into our legal system and into the judicial and administrative procedures flowing from it. They did so against a background of scaremongering and vilification promoted by those opposite. Those opposite thought nothing of undermining the rule of law, of vilifying, threatening and ridiculing the High Court. The difficulty in managing this complex debate was set in concrete. The coalition gave respectability to views that would give comfort to and were to nurture the political forces that are now poised to devour them. It has helped purge many of their colleagues from the Queensland parliament and replace them with even more extreme politicians feeding on the fears they put in place.Had the Keating government done nothing, Australia would be still at a standstill today, as the validity of every title issued since European settlement was tested in lengthy common law cases in the courts. Every proposed development, every new interest in land the government sought to issue would be subject to scrutiny in the same process, and its validity in doubt until the end of the process.The 1993 act secured and validated all post-settlement titles. It enabled Australia to proceed with business as usual. To listen to the lies and half-truths peddled around the country by conservative politicians, one would believe that the 1993 act invented native title, rather than the fact that its principal, immediate effect was to secure the titles held by non-indigenous Australians. Imperfect though it proved to be, it stands in honourable contrast to the amendment bill we have dealt with in all its forms since September 1997.This amendment bill, underpinned as it is by the 10-point plan, will propel this nation into the courts. In its push to wind back the gains made by indigenous Australians, it flies in the face of our constitution and of our international obligations. It purports to be a response to the High Court's Wik decision. It is, in the sense that it seeks to quash any rights indigenous people may have had recognised in that case.In this matter, as in many others, the government proceeds with dishonest intent and effect. The principal thrust of the Wik decision was to confirm the absolute security of pastoralists' titles and to assure them that any native title rights were inferior to their rights. This message was not received in the bush. Those opposite and their friends in other places spread fear and uncertainty in the bush for their own cheap political advantage.Mr Speaker, what have the miners conceded in this fair and honourable compromise? What have the pastoralists conceded in this fair and honourable compromise? Nothing. Yet they were at the table. They gave up nothing. Whose rights were taken? Indigenous people's rights, both in the previous Native Title Act and what was recognised in Wik. The fine detail shows it, yet they were not at the table. There was no consent by indigenous Australians to this process. There is no consent to this amendment bill, unlike the process that took place in 1993 where indigenous Australians were listened to. Not all their demands were acceded to, but it was a fair and honourable compromise in 1993. We did not have much to work with, unlike this government. The pendulum swinging back to the middle is the key to this amendment bill. The taking of indigenous Australians' rights has not stopped. This amendment bill does not deserve support in its totality. (Time expired)10:56:006059Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—I could not commence my speech without some remarks about the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). On a very serious matter which everybody else from both sides of the House has addressed in that fashion, he chose to rave on in a highly political context. He also raised, as have others, the bogy of litigation and compensation.In regard to compensation, I have been astounded at all times by the original Labor legislation, and I have been astounded that so many so-called supporters of Aboriginal rights have kept telling the government to make sure it has got legislation that prevents Aboriginal people from getting compensation. I have never been able to understand the compensation bogy, and the Leader of the Opposition told us again this morning, `You've made a big mistake. You've actually created a situation where the people of Australia might have to pay compensation.' I have never been able to understand the logic of that argument. Of course this bill does, and the committee that I chair was one of the great advocates of that. I must also say, for all those who say this is going back to the High Court, that probably one of the most knowledgeable people in this area, Father Frank Brennan, told us on the ABC this morning that he thought success of any challenges in the High Court was most unlikely.The Leader of the Opposition then went on to tell us that his own act had to be overhauled, but I remind him that the principal power of the National Native Title Tribunal to reject unsubstantiated or, as Sugar Ray Robinson called them, ambit claims was knocked over by the High Court within months of the tribunal's creation, yet within the further life of the federal Labor government, they did nothing about it. It is a bit hard to say now that they concede something had to be done.The Leader of the Opposition got really smart in challenging me that, after this act, 82 per cent of Western Australia will still be under claim. Let me say, `Not so.' All claims lodged post-1996 must now confront the new threshold test. Many will not succeed because they have no substance. It is not so in terms of any practical effect upon titles such as perpetual and CP leases in my electorate. They are now covered in an amendment which was opposed by the Labor Party in schedule 4. Schedule 4 quite properly lists, to put beyond doubt, to put beyond the courts, those properties that meet the High Court extinguishment process, and many people—including about 900 property owners in my electorate—can sleep when this schedule is incorporated in law.It is not so in terms of any practical effect upon development delays in towns and cities. We have excluded that from the right to negotiate. It is not so in terms of any practical effect on public and private infrastructure projects. So the area might still be there, but these issues that have been causing so much trouble—for example, a block of land for a working man in Karratha, where job opportunities exist, has increased from $20,000 to $100,000 because all the vacant land as far as you can see could not be subdivided because of native title claims—will be resolved, and so they should. There is a vast difference in what these areas of claims might look like. It is also not so in practical terms, where state authorities with their new state regime will be able to utilise their common place resumption rights with appropriate consultation and appropriate compensation, supported by the people of all Australia in this fashion.Let me just say something quickly about the right to negotiate, which has been totally discredited. It has seldom resulted in jobs for Aboriginal people. It has seldom resulted in proceedings to gain native title. There was frequently no attendance by Aboriginal interests to explain why they sought the right to negotiate. It frequently involved confidentiality agreements over cash settlements. It frequently resulted in a single individual and his or her lawyer getting all the money. What is more, it frequently prevented genuine Aboriginal claimants getting within sight of it because you had multiple claims. (Time expired)11:01:006060Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I rise to oppose the motion and to associate myself with remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans). It always helps in this area to go back to the starting point, which was Mabo No. 2. What did the High Court say in Mabo No. 2? The High Court said that native title was a common law property right and needed to be respected as such. It said that 200 years after a court of this country should have first said it, and said it after about 100 years of settling the exactness of our property rights through state administration and state courts.So what path did this parliament have? It was either to leave it to the courts for endless litigation or to legislate. We said, `We will legislate.' We always knew that the Native Title Act 1993 would have procedural and other difficulties caused either by court cases or by practical experience. That we were committed to workability and certainty was reflected by our own amendments which we put into this parliament in 1995 and which lapsed on that parliament's dissolution.After the 1996 election, what approach did this government, the Howard-Fischer coalition, take? It took its 10-point plan. Its 10-point plan would not work when it was first introduced, and, as amended, it will not work now. It will not work now because, in the end, it will be found to be unconstitutional and it will drive people who have common law property rights into the courts—Federal, State, Supreme and High—for endless litigation. That will not help the minerals and resources industry. It will not help our nation. It will not help anyone. What we see today reflects the starting point and the view from start to finish of this government. What it seeks to do today is for political advantage, and that has been its entire basis from the moment it started.When we look at the repercussions of the Native Title Act 1993, we find the most successful outcomes from that act are those which have come about as a result of negotiation. If you want to pursue private property rights and common law property rights, what is the best way of doing that? Through a fair and workable framework and by negotiation. If you want to do it by negotiation, you have got to have goodwill. Because the government seeks to pursue this issue, not in the national interest but in its private political interest and to its private political advantage, that goodwill is lacking. The most successful outcomes for native title have been where goodwill has been present: Yandicoogina in Western Australia, for example, and the proposed PNG to Gladstone Chevron pipeline.Often in this context, people say, as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) did in May 1997, that native title has caused investment in our minerals and resources industries to grind to a halt. That is not true; it was not true then and it is not true now. Some people make that assertion, other people say that potential access to land difficulties have not caused a problem—and the truth is in the middle.If you look at the private capital investment figures in mining and resources, you see the March quarter figures, for example, showed a current estimate for it to be 24.8 per cent higher than the March quarter for 1997. Bankers Trust said on the investment figures:Investment in the mining sector rose by 3.1% following a 2.6% rise in the December quarter.Bankers Trust also say that in the past year, investment in the mining sector had risen by 15.7 per cent, which compared with two per cent in manufacturing and zero per cent in other industries. That is all reflected in an article by Gerard Noonan in the Canberra Times on Thursday of this week titled `Mining booming despite Wik factor'.So what are the real difficulties? Yes, there is real access to land difficulty which we must solve, but some of the great challenges that face our minerals and resources industry go to the long-term decline in the commodity price cycle which runs against Australia, a long-term decline in the profit share on minerals and resources investment, a long-term decline in interest in the minerals and resources industries generally by the investment community, current bad market sentiment nationally and internationally to some of our mineral resources companies' manage ment, and difficulties in particular for gold, not all necessarily caused by native title, but caused as well by what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) had to say in respect of the RBA gold sell-off.Very many of those factors are reflected by a press release put out on 26 May this year by the Minerals Council of Australia's Executive Director, Dick Wells, where he talked about the keys to the future for minerals and resources. He spoke about the emergence of new low cost mineral deposits in other regions in the world, the growth in mineral supply from new sources opened up by global economic and political reforms, and continued downward pressure on world commodity prices.So access to land is one problem and we have to fix it. This motion, this bill and this government's approach will not fix it. If you want to fix this problem, you have to make sure you do it within a fair framework and with goodwill. If you want goodwill instilled into this process, it is quite clear that there is only one way in which you can do it—and that is called Kim Beazley Prime Minister.11:06:006061Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—It is noteworthy that none of the members of the opposition who have spoken in this native title debate—the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), the member for Banks (Mr Melham) and the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith)—have any first-hand experience of dealing with Aboriginal people at all and none of them have any understanding of the real problems out there in the bush. The member for Perth probably has a greater grasp of the law than anyone on the Labor side. He has got a lot of qualifications in this area, but he knows that a lot of what he is saying is absolute hyperbole. To suggest, as he does, that native title is not a big problem to the mining industry is sheer and utter nonsense. The heart of the gold mining industry in Kalgoorlie is grinding to a halt because of lack of access.Let us go back to causes. In five minutes it is very hard to do justice to this debate. When the High Court made its decision, Dawson got it right when he said, `This is not law.' And it was not law. It was humbug. It was the High Court playing social engineer—not its job. It is interesting to see that McHugh is now coming to that conclusion. It is a bit late for Justice McHugh to realise the damage he has done.It is quite clear that the Labor Party's native title bill went far beyond the High Court decision. And the Wik decision leapfrogged that again. If the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had taken my advice and brought legislation into this House to put beyond doubt that pastoral leases extinguish native title, I think he would have intimidated the courts rather than the courts intimidating the nation, as they did.The Leader of the Opposition in his speech was pouring scorn on a threat to freehold, when we have before the High Court now the Larrakia judgment that brings into doubt the question of whether freehold is attackable. It is interesting that Brennan pointed out in his decision on Wik that in his view native title was extinguished by pastoral leases, but he said, `If it wasn't, nor was it extinguished on freehold.' You just cannot write off a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and say he has no standing. I suspect he has a far greater understanding than the member for Banks or the member for Holt will ever have.We have got this nonsense talk about goodwill. It is the Labor Party that is going to make sure there is no goodwill in this process. It is the Labor Party that is going to go out there and give assistance to those frauds in society—people like Noel Pearson. Whom does Noel Pearson represent? We find that these self-appointed leaders of the Aboriginal industry, which the Labor Party dotes on, actually represent nobody.Let us look at the conflict of interest of Mr Pearson. He is employed by Liebler and Bloch, a company that has made a lot of money out of all this tragedy that has beset Australia. It currently gets from ATSIC a considerable sum of money every year. That goes right to the heart of native title negotiations. What a conflict of interest. It would be very useful if the media in this country would have a look at that sort of conflict.The member for Banks keeps going around saying that the government must bring in laws which are beneficial to Aboriginal people. What a nonsense. How can you ever deal with such a subjective subject? How can you ever know? Any law you bring in is going to be good for some and bad for others. It is the Labor Party, especially the member for Holt, by bringing this sort of nonsense forward today that is going to bring dissent and give succour to those who want to make this bill not work.I say to the Labor Party—the member for Perth, who is out there supposedly representing the mining industry—and I would say he has not had a lot of consultation in this case; the member for Banks, who has no association with Aboriginal people; the member for Holt, Garrulous Evans, who has never had real association with anything in the world; and the Leader of the Opposition—if this is not successful, it will not be back in this House to be negotiated. It will go to a referendum of the Australian people because it is quite clear that the Australian people have got a damn sight more commonsense than this parliament has ever had.11:11:006062Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Mr Justice Connolly, a distinguished judge of the Supreme Court and a very good lawyer, said of the Mabo decision:As law, the decision is pitiful. This is naked assumption of power by a body quite unfitted to make the political and social decisions that are involved.Recently in the Supreme Court of Canada there was the Delgamuukw case, which basically turned all the established land law in British Columbia on its head. Gordon Gibson, writing in the Globe and Mail on 16 December 1997, said of the Canadian Supreme Court:It commenced to invent law, with little reference to other than its own recent decisions and academic writings. It is a breathtaking exercise in amateur social engineering, and dramatically shifts the balance of power . . . The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), with respect, is correct. You do need to understand that, when we talk here about benefiting indigenous people, Aborigines, and those sorts of things, it is an abstract discussion. I spent 12 years acting for Aboriginals at Cherbourg and I can tell you now that the nonsense that has gone on in this parliament over the last 18 months about the Native Title Act will not benefit one Aborigine in Cherbourg—not one. They are the people who need to be benefited. That is replicated right around the country. We are talking abstract concepts here. I know some us are very well meaning and are talking with our hearts, but we are not talking with our heads.It is important in mentioning this to refer to a really good book. Again, I find unbelievable the absolute absence of any reading and learning about some of these topics. How about a bit of learning and insight into what is really needed to advance Aborigines instead of talking in these abstract, emotive concepts that are not going to advance Aboriginal interests one jot. Michael Warby's book Past Wrongs, Future Rights said:The developing thread in public policy of building up an independent, privately owned asset base for indigenous Australians is far more potentially productive than the previous welfarist and anti-discrimination approaches. But only provided such an approach is:. a basis for building up institutions, and assisting in the re-construction of a vibrant civil society, genuinely inclusive of indigenous Australians; and. fostering the cultural adaptation which must occur if indigenous Australians are to gain rightful benefits of participation in Australian and global society.Cultural (including institutional) adaptations must come from within indigenous societies and communities if they are to succeed. Forced persistence with, for example, communal and inalienable title is not only not a basis for progress in improving conditions for indigenous Australians, it will actually retard progress. Native title, construed as communal, inalienable and generally partial title, is not a path forward.That is not a book by some right-wing looney; that is a book by Michael Warby and it is a book that is based on a lot of research, effort and knowledge. I am saying that you do need to have that knowledge. It is no good talking in the abstract—`Yes, this great group of indigenous Australians are benefiting.' They will not benefit at Cherbourg and they will not benefit at some of the other communities. This is what we need to do.We also need to get away from what has been, in my view, terrible social division in the last two years of so—or even longer—since these decisions have come down. It is no good saying we must respect the High Court. We do respect the High Court, but we are entitled to criticise its judgments if it gets it wrong. It is important that we do that. We have got to be able to criticise decisions that are wrong.I am saying that the people of Australia need to be consulted and they are not consulted about this issue. As the member for Kalgoorlie says, we need a referendum in this country to decide this issue of native title—whether Australians want it or whether they do not want it—to remove all the division. That is the way ahead. That is the way to get the people involved in the process.Why is it that the parliament will not trust the people of Australia to make a decision about native title? We will not trust them. I cannot understand why honourable members shrink away from the proposition that we can trust the people of Australia to give the right answers for themselves and insist on foisting answers upon them through these measures. These measures will not work. We are going to be back and forward to the High Court, incurring more and more expense. Aboriginal advancement will go backwards and that will be the next BMW or the next house down the coast for the lawyers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for the consideration of this matter has concluded. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's ) be agreed to.11:20:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)81Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Campbell, G.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.42Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Bradford, J. W. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Dondas, N. M. Morris, P. F.Gash, J. Macklin, J. L.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Evans, M. J.Scott, B. C. Ferguson, L. D. T.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.6064Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present the following reasons for the House disagreeing to certain amendments:Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to certain amendments for the Senate—Racial Discrimination ActSenate Amendment Opp(RN42)The amendment replaces subsection 7(1) and provides that the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) is intended to be read and construed subject to the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA). The House of Representatives has modified this amendment and consequently the Senate version is rejected.ConfirmationSenate Amendments Govt(3), Opp(N5), (N10) and Govt(9)These amendments, dealing with aspects of the definitions of `previous exclusive possession act' and `scheduled interest' respectively, have been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate versions are consequently rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(N3)This amendment to subsection 23B(9A) removes Crown to Crown grants from the definition of `previous exclusive possession act' until the grant is used for residential, agricultural or commercial purposes which would otherwise extinguish native title. The amendment has been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate version is consequently rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(RN2)This amendment to subsection 23B(11) allows for revival of native title if the common law allows it. This Government does not believe that this reflects the current state of the common law so the amendment is rejected.Indigenous land use agreementsSenate Amendments Govt(12), (14), (17) and (19), Opp(N11), (N12), (N13), (N14), (N15), (N16), (N46) and (N47), These amendments to the indigenous land use agreement provisions have been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate versions are consequently rejected.Senate Amendment Dems-GWA(163)This amendment deals with the removal of ILUAs from the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements by the Federal Court. This amendment has been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate version is consequently rejected.Senate Amendments Dems-GWA(20), (21), (22), (25), (26) and (27)These amendments to the ILUA provisions remove references to `future acts'. As ILUAs can already cover any matters relating to native title, the Senate amendments have been rejected by the House of Representatives as unnecessary.Senate Amendments Dems-GWA(23), (24), (28) and (29)These amendments to the ILUA provisions involve representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies in the making of ILUAs to a greater degree than is consistent with Government policy. They have been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate versions are consequently rejected.Senate Amendments Dems-GWA(30), (31) and (32A)These amendments make technically incorrect cross-references to representative bodies and have been rejected by the House of Representatives.Primary productionSenate Amendment Govt(26), Opp(N19)These amendments deal with an amended definition of `mine' in section 253. As this definition has been slightly modified by the House of Representatives the Senate version has been rejected.Senate Amendments Harradine(N1)/Opp(N17), Harradine(N2)/Opp(N18) and Harradine(R9)These amendments, limiting the types/timing of primary production activities, have been modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate versions are consequently rejected.RenewalsSenate Amendment Govt(29) This amendment to section 24IC in the Bill ensures that a future act which results in the conversion of a term mining lease into a perpetual mining lease is not a `permissible lease etc. renewal' under section 24IC. There is some doubt as to whether this amendment was accepted by the Senate. Accordingly the House of Representatives has rejected that amendment and has made another amendment in the same terms.Senate Amendment Opp(RN27)This amendment, limiting the renewal of mining titles in section 26D, has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(N21), (N22), (RN23), Harradine(14)These amendments to the provisions dealing with permissible lease etc. renewals in Subdivision I of Schedule 1, prevent renewals for a longer term than the original grant or the perpetualisation of leases etc. The amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Services to the publicSenate Amendment Opp(RR101)This amendment to section 24KA, which deals with facilities for services to the public, adds two subsections relating to procedural rights. This amendment has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(93), (94) and (95)/Dems-GWA(87)These amendments to section 24KA limit the coverage of the provision. The amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendment Dems-GWA(92)/Opp(100)This amendment to section 24KA gives native title holders the same procedural rights as freeholders on land where only co-existing native title is possible. This amendment has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Freehold test and offshoreSenate Amendments Opp(RR107) and (RR110)These amendments to section 24MD and 24NA, which deal respectively with the treatment of acts passing the freehold test and acts affecting offshore places, add subsections relating to procedural rights. These amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Senate Amendments Harradine(18) and (21)These amendments to sections 24MD and 24NA attempt to ensure that the acquisition of native title is non-discriminatory, however, they are based on the mistaken belief that the only way in which non-native title interests are acquired by the Crown is through compulsory acquisition. These amendments have been modified by the House of Representa tives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Right to negotiateSenate Amendment Govt(44)This amendment to section 35 includes a reference to a deleted provision (section 34A) and, as it has been modified by the House of Representatives, the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(N28) This amendment has been rejected by the House of Representatives because it is unnecessary. The amendment removes a reference to section 34A in amendment Govt(44) which is also being rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(R114) This amendment to section 26, about whether or not a compulsory acquisition is for government purposes or for the benefit of a third party, has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendments Harradine(22), Opp(201)/Dems-GWA(170), Opp(221)/Dems-GWA(188), Opp(287)/Dems-GWA(258)These amendments to provisions dealing with the right to negotiate and the provision of infrastructure in Subdivision P have been modified in the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(117)/Dems-GWA(107)/Harradine(23), Opp(200)/Dems-GWA(169), Opp(218)/Dems-GWA(185) and Opp(295)/Dems-GWA(265)These amendments to provisions dealing with towns and cities in Subdivision P of Schedule 1, and section 251C have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected. Amendment Opp(218)/Dems-GWA(185) also deletes section 251D which defines land where public work is situated. The deletion of section 251D is contrary to Government policy and consequently this Senate amendment is also rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(N24), (N25) and (N26)These amendments to section 26A impose additional conditions on the Minister in relation to the making of a determination to exclude acts from the right to negotiate. These amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(125)/Dems-GWA(114), Opp(126)/Dems-GWA(115), Opp(127)/Dems-GWA(116), Opp(134)/Dems-GWA(124) and Opp(170)/Dems-GWA(136)These amendments relate to the effect of permitting conjunctive agreements in relation to the right to negotiate for the renewal of mining leases and exploration/prospecting tenements in sections 26D, 33 and 38. The amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions are rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(152) This amendment to subsection 36B(2) in relation to notice being given by the Minister to the arbitral body has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(142)This amendment replaces the content of section 36 which requires arbitral body determinations to be made as soon as practicable. As the House of Representatives has made subsequent modifications to section 36, the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(143), (145), (146), (147), (148), (151), (153), (154), (155), (156), (157), (158), (161), (162), (163), (164) and (165)These amendments were made to section 36A which deals with a Ministerial determination where the arbitral body's determination is delayed. Section 36A has subsequently been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(167)/Dems-GWA(135)This amendment provides for a fourth kind of arbitral body determination, namely one which provides, where the parties agree, for particular matters to be the subject of further negotiations or determined in a specified manner. This amendment has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(172)/Dems-GWA(138) and Dems-GWA(137) These amendments are made to section 39 which lists the criteria for making arbitral body determinations. As the amendments change the criteria to be considered by the arbitral body in unacceptable ways including potentially duplicating processes required under State/Territory environmental laws by requiring the arbitral body to consider environmental factors in detail, consequently the House of Representatives has rejected these amendments. The amendment relating to the criteria referring to economic detriment of the proposed act has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(173)This amendment is made to section 40 which prevents the re-opening by an arbitral body of issues that have already been the subject of an agreement between the parties. The effect of this amendment is not clear and the amendment is rejected by the House of Representatives. Senate Amendments Opp(118)/Dems-GWA(108)/Harradine(N3), Opp(178)/Dems-GWA(146)/Harradine(31), Opp(198)/Dems-GWA(167)/Harradine(52), Opp(203)/Dems-GWA(172)/Harradine(53) and Opp(355)/Dems-GWA(330)/Harradine(54) These amendments relate to section 43A which provides procedural rights for native title holders in relation to mining on coexisting tenures at least equivalent to those of the coexisting tenure holder. These amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate versions have been rejected.Senate Amendments Opp(R209) and (210) These amendments are made to section 237 which relates to the expedited procedure. As the effect of these amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives the Senate versions have been rejected.Senate Amendments Dems-GWA(268) and (270) These amendments remove 2 items in the Bill which clarify the status of the intertidal zone between the high and low water marks. These amendments are rejected by the House of Representatives.Statutory access rightsSenate Amendment Opp(N30) This amendment to section 44A grants statutory access rights prior to a determination of native title to those native title claimants who have been either prevented by government action from accessing the pastoral lease or who had been refused access to the pastoral lease by the lessee or his agent. This amendment is contrary to the Government's 10-point plan as it does not limit statutory access to those who had access as at the date of the Wik decision. For this reason the amendment has been rejected by the House of Representatives.Senate Amendment Opp(183)/Dems-GWA(151) This amendment omits section 44C and has the effect that pastoralists could be vulnerable to common law actions by registered native title claimants who have been given statutory access to their pastoral lease in the time before their claim is finally determined by the court. The removal of this protection for pastoralists is contrary to Government policy and consequently the amendment is rejected by the House of Representatives.CompensationSenate Amendments Govt(51) and Opp (RN32)These amendments are made to item 102, subsection 18AB(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The amendments permit the Federal Court to make rules providing an alternative procedure for small compensation claim applications. As these amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives, the Senate versions have been rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(R188)This amendment to subsection 51(1) confuses the compensation processes for impairment of native title with compensation for extinguishment of native title and is consequently rejected by the House of Representatives.Senate Amendment Opp(N31)This amendment to subsection 51(1A) confuses compensation for the effect on native title of an act done in accordance with NTA processes and other compensation which is payable for an invalid act (due to non-compliance with NTA processes). The amendment is therefore rejected by the House of Representatives.Claims process and the sunset clauseSenate Amendment Govt(61)This amendment to section 13 related to time limits for native title determination applications, including where sections 47A or 47B may apply. As the sunset clauses have been removed from the Bill this amendment is not now necessary and consequently has been rejected by the House.Senate Amendment Dems-GWA (333)This amendment omits a transitional provision related to subsection 50(2A) which deals with time limits for native title compensation applications but also removes an unrelated transitional provision which has to be retained. The House of Representatives has moved a separate amendment to remove the transitional item relating to the sunset clause. The Senate amendment is not now necessary and consequently has been rejected by the House.Registration testSenate Amendments Govt(70), Opp(RN34) and (RN35) The latter two amendments were made to Amendment Govt(70) and attempted to insert into section 186 (which deals with the contents of the Register of Native Title Claims) provisions which the Government believes are of no legal effect. Amendment Govt(70) has been remade subsequently by the House of Representatives and the Senate version is therefore rejected. An additional amendment has been made by the House of Representatives which achieves the outcome intended by the other Senate amendments.Senate Amendments Opp(N36) [as amended by Opp(N37)] These amendments were made to section 190B and contain a reworking of the major elements of the registration test. As these amendments make traditional physical connection an alternative to the Mabo test they have been further modified by the House of Representatives and the Senate version has been rejected.Representative bodiesSenate Amendments Govt(77), (78) and Opp(N45) These amendments to the provision dealing with the transfer of records from a former to a new representative body (section 203FC) are intended to ensure that the wishes of the traditional custodians of such information are taken into account in relation to the transfer. These amendments have been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version is rejected.MiscellaneousSenate Amendment Govt(87) This amendment to section 214, which lists the disallowable instruments in the NTA, has been modified by the House of Representatives and consequently the Senate version has been rejected.Senate Amendment Opp(N49)This amendment inserted a transitional provision which would have had the effect of validating and giving special treatment to one particular infrastructure project in Queensland. There was doubt about the provision's legal effectiveness and consequently the amendment was rejected by the House of Representatives.I move:That the House adopt the statement of reasons.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents606711:25:006067Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—A paper is tabled as listed in schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard .Employment, Education and Training Act— National Board of Employment, Education and Training—Higher Education Council—12th Report on the operation of section 14 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme.Auditor-General's Reports606710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 1 for 1998-99 entitledPerformance audit—Corporate governance framework—Australian Electoral Commission .Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to: That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 1 of 1998-99; and(2) the report be printed.Bills6068r2506068Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 5), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) Schedule 6 is taken to have commenced on 9 October 1996, immediately after the commencement of the Airports (Transitional) Act 1996 .(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A Section 5 (definition of joint-user airport )Repeal the definition, substitute: joint-user airport has the meaning given by section 7B.1B After section 7AInsert:7B Meaning of joint-user airport(1) For the purposes of this Act, each of the following airports is a joint-user airport : (a) Darwin Airport; (b) Townsville Airport; (c) an airport specified in the regulations, where the site of the airport is a Commonwealth place.(2) For the purposes of this Act, Canberra Airport is a joint-user airport . However, the regulations may declare that, for the purposes of this Act, Canberra Airport ceases to be a joint-user airport at a specified time.(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the boundaries of the site of an airport are to be ascertained in accordance with the regulations.1C Section 11Omit "have one airport lease", substitute "lease one airport".1D Subsections 16(1) and (2)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) The Commonwealth must not grant a lease of the whole or a part of an airport site to a person who already holds an airport lease or an interest in an airport lease, unless each of those leases relates to the same airport site.(2) The Minister must not approve the transfer of a lease of the whole or a part of an airport site to a person who already holds an airport lease or an interest in an airport lease, unless each of those leases relates to the same airport site.Note: The heading to section 16 is altered by omitting "only one airport lease " and substituting "airport leases for only one airport site ".1E At the end of subsection 17(1)Add ", unless those leases relate to the same airport site".Note: The heading to section 17 is replaced by the heading "Simultaneous grant of leases to the same person must relate to the same airport ".1F Subsection 19(1)Omit "if there is already", substitute "to a person if another person already holds".Note: The heading to section 19 is altered by omitting "lease per " and substituting "person to hold airport leases for an ".1G After subsection 19(1)Insert:(1A) If there are 2 or more airport leases for the same airport site, the Minister must not approve the transfer of any of those leases unless the Minister is satisfied that, immediately after the transfer of that lease, all of those leases will be held by the same person.1H Subsection 19(2)After "grant", insert "or approval".1J At the end of subsection 20(1)Add ", unless those grants are to the same person".Note: The heading to section 20 is replaced by the heading "Simultaneous grant of leases relating to the same airport site to be to the same person ".1K After section 20Insert: 20A Airport leases for an airport site to expire on the same dayIf there are, or are to be, 2 or more airport leases for the same airport site, the Commonwealth must ensure that the term of each of those leases expires on the same day.1L After paragraph 24(3)(d)Insert: (da) on the grounds set out in subsection 19(1A); or1M Subsection 32(4)After "airport-lessee company", insert "for an airport".1N Subsection 32(4)After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1P Section 73After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1Q Section 74Omit "lease is", substitute "lease or airport leases are".1R Section 118After "lease", insert "or airport leases".1S Section 119Omit "lease is", substitute "lease or airport leases are".(3) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:3 At the end of subsection 192(2)Add:Note: For the meaning of airport service , see subsections (4A), (4B) and (5).4 After subsection 192(4)Insert:(4A) The ACCC may make a written determination providing that a specified service, or a specified use of a specified facility, at an airport is taken to be an airport service for the purposes of this section. Note: A service, use or facility may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.(4B) The ACCC may make a written determination providing that a specified service, or a specified use of a specified facility, at an airport is taken not to be an airport service for the purposes of this section. Note: A service, use or facility may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.(4C) A determination under subsection (4A) or (4B) has effect accordingly. (4D) A determination under subsection (4A) or (4B) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .5 Subsection 192(5)After "this section", insert ", unless the contrary intention appears".6 Subparagraph 251(4)(b)(iii)Omit "the airport lease", substitute "an airport lease".(4) Page 21 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 6—Amendment of the Airports (Transitional) Act 19961 Paragraphs 20(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (a) a core regulated airport (within the meaning of the Airports Act 1996 ); (b) Mt. Isa Airport; (c) Tennant Creek Airport; (d) Archerfield Airport; (e) Essendon Airport; (ea) Jandakot Airport; (eb) Moorabbin Airport; (ec) Parafield Airport; (ed) Bankstown Airport; (ee) Camden Airport; (ef) Hoxton Park Airport;Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills6069r2066069Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (line 27), omit "the suspect is a child, or".(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (line 5) to page 42 (line 7), omit section 23XN, substitute:23XN Certain forensic procedures generally to be carried out by person of same sex as suspect(1) If practicable, an intimate forensic procedure (other than the taking of a sample of blood, a sample of saliva, a buccal swab or a dental impression) is to be carried out: (a) if the suspect is an adult—by a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (b) if the suspect is a child—by a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect.(2) If practicable, a non-intimate forensic procedure for which the suspect is required to remove clothing other than his or her overcoat, coat, jacket, gloves, socks, shoes and hat is to be carried out: (a) if the suspect is an adult—by a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (b) if the suspect is a child—by a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect.(3) If practicable, a person asked under section 23XO to help carry out a forensic procedure covered by subsection (1) or (2): (a) is to be: (i) if the suspect is an adult—a person of the same sex as the suspect; or (ii) if the suspect is a child—a person of the sex chosen by the suspect or, if the suspect does not wish to make such a choice, by a person of the same sex as the suspect; and (b) is to be a person who is not inappropriate to help carry out the forensic procedure.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 53 (after line 34), at the end of section 23YF, add:(3) If section 23YD requires forensic material taken from a suspect by a forensic procedure to be destroyed, the investigating constable must ensure that any video recording of the carrying out of the forensic procedure is also destroyed.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 60 (after line 10), at the end of Part 1D, add:Division 13—Review of operation of Part23YV Review of operation of Part(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of: (a) the operation of this Part; and (b) the extent to which the forensic procedures permitted by this Part have contributed to the conviction of suspects; and (c) any other matter in relation to this Part which, in the Minister's view, should be considered; to be undertaken as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the commencement of this Act.(2) A person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by the Minister. (4) In this section: independent review means a review undertaken by persons who: (a) in the Minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and (b) include a nominee of the Attorney-General, a nominee of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a nominee of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a nominee of the Ombudsman.Motion (by Mr Williams) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.11:28:006070House adjourned at 11.28 a.m.Notices6070The following notices were given:Mr Crean to move—That the following statements made in the House relating to the reform of the stevedoring industry:(a) "the MUA have created their own predicament,. That has not been generated by anybody else"—stated by the Prime Minister (Hansard , 8 April 1998, page 2779);(b) "we are approaching this on a constructive basis. It is important that we sit down and talk with the respective parties . . . from the government's point of view we . . . are prepared to sit down with people and constructively talk"—stated by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Hansard , 27 October 1997, page 9823); and(c) "basically the funds were expended on obtaining reports"—stated by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Hansard , 4 June 1998, page 4482)—be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report as to whether, in light of the paper presented to the House on 2 July 1998 entitled Waterfront strategy , the paper presented to the House on 4 June 1998 entitled Waterfront strategy—Supplementary paper for Cabinet consideration and related documents, the Prime Minister and the Minister have deliberately misled the House.Mr Price to move—That this House:(1) congratulates the rice industry, an agricultural success story in holding down domestic prices and exporting over 80 per cent of production;(2) regrets the threats made to the NSW Labor Government by the President of the National Competition Council to deduct $10 million in Commonwealth funding if the industry is not deregulated;(3) notes the failure of the National Party members to defend this successful industry or the 2200 farms, 8000 direct rice jobs or the 42 000 indirect jobs or even speak up in the House about these threats to the industry; and(4) calls on the Government to support the industry and the NSW Government and withdraw threats of penalising the NSW Government by $10 million.Documents6071The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 July 1998:Aged Care Act—Principles 1998 Allocation Amendment (No. 1).Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 207, 208, 209.Airports (Transitional) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 206.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 202.Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 200.Banking Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 198.Banks (Shareholdings) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 213.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemption 1998 No. 23.Instruments 1998 Nos. CASA 205, CASA 206.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Ordinance 1998 No. 3.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 211, 212.Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 216.Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 199.Fishing Levy Act and Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 205.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 203, 204.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement under section 40.Laying Chicken Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 215.Life Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 191.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 210, 214.Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 1 July 1998 as the date on which Schedule 2 of the Trade Practices Amendment (Fair Trading) Act 1998 shall come into operation.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. SESROB 53, SESROB 54.Student Assistance Act—Determination 1998 No. 2.Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act—Determination—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 201.Telecommunications Act 1997—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 180.Answers to Questions in Writing6072The following answers to questions were circulated:6072(Question No. 2726)27266072Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:Will he bring up to date the answer to question No. 1250 (Hansard , 14 May 1997, page 3653), concerning Australia's periodic reports to UN bodies under the six major human rights conventions.6072Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Instrument: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsReporting Period: First report due November 1981 and thereafter every five years.Current status: Third report due 1991. Fourth report due 1996. The Third and Fourth reports have been approved by the Attorney-General and should be lodged with the United Nations in the near future.Department responsible: Attorney-General's DepartmentInstrument: Convention on the Rights of the ChildReporting Period: First report due January 1993 and thereafter every five years.Current status: First report submitted January 1996 and was considered in September 1997. Informal advice from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child is that Australia's next report is not due until September 2002, that is five years from the date of consideration of Australia' s first report. My Department is seeking written confirmation of that advice from the Committee.Department responsible: Attorney-General's DepartmentInstrument: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or PunishmentReporting Period: First report due September 1990 and thereafter every four years.Current status: Second report due September 1994. Second report was drafted and sent for comment to States and Territories and non-government sector. The draft report was revised on the basis of comments received from the States and Territories and non-government sector. A revised draft is currently being prepared.Instrument: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsReporting Period: Reports due every five years. Third periodic report on Articles 1—1 5 due June 1 994.Current status: Third report has been finalised and transmitted to the United Nations on 19 June 1998.Department responsible: Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeInstrument: International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationReporting Period: First report due October 1976 and thereafter every four years.Current status: Ninth report considered August 1994. Tenth report due 1994. Eleventh report due 1996. Twelfth report due 1998. It has been decided that a combined tenth and eleventh and twelfth report will be submitted by October 1998. Work on the draft report is progressing to schedule.Department responsible: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Instrument: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WomenReporting Period: First report due August 1984 and thereafter every four years.Current status: Second report considered 1994. Third report due 1994. Third report submitted in 1994 as a supplement to second report and recognised in 1995 as the third report which was considered in 1997. A combined fourth and fifth report will be submitted in 2000.Department responsible: Office of the Status of Women, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.6072(Question No. 2731)27316072Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:Did the RAAF Roulettes divert from their flight path between Orange, NSW, and East Sale, Vic., on 30 November 1997 to perform a fly-past over the private home of Mr Dick Smith, the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; if so, (a) how far did the Roulettes deviate to conduct the fly-past, (b) what approximate additional cost was incurred, (c) who authorised the fly-past, (d) what procedures exist for determining what and where the Roulettes will perform and (e) were the procedures followed in this case.6073Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—As Acting Minister for Defence, my answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) Approximately 19 km.(b) Approximately $345.(c) Commanding Officer Central Flying School.(d) The Roulettes program for each six month display period stems from requests received from various organisations. Consideration is given to each request and the program is then forwarded to the Chief of Air Force for approval. Many requests for fly pasts from charitable and other organisations are received after the Roulettes' program is finalised, and often at very short notice. Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis and approval for the Roulettes to satisfy these requests may be given, in order to maximise the public exposure of the Australian Defence Force. While not included in the published program of the Roulettes, such flights are accommodated wherever possible and usually involve only minor adjustments to the aircraft's transit flight path.(e) An examination of current procedures has revealed that such requests should be approved by the Chief of Air Force. Records have been checked back to May 1995. That examination shows that over this period and probably earlier, Air Force personnel have not always followed the approval procedures, with flypasts being approved at a lower level by Air Force personnel acting in good faith to maximise exposure of the Roulettes to the public. Four examples are: a 7 May 1995 fly past at Nambour for an "Australia Remembers" event, a 25 September 1995 display for Camp Quality children at RAAF Amberley, a 25 November 1995 fly past at Yarrawonga for a power boat show, and an 18 March 1996 fly past for the World Bowls Championship in Adelaide. In the instance the honourable member referred to in his question, the flypast was authorised by the Commanding Officer of the Central Flying School. All personnel associated with Roulette operations have been reminded of the need to comply with the approval process.6073(Question No. 2825)28256073Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:(1) What definition of `engagement' was used in preparing the answer to question No. 2585 (Hans ard, 4 March 1998, page 371) regarding engagements undertaken by the RAAF Roulettes.(2) Further to question No. 2731, if the Roulettes flew over Mr Dick Smith's property, (a) was a separate flight plan required, (b) who requested the fly-past, (c) when was it requested and (d) did the fly-past qualify as an engagement: if not, why not; if so, why was it not referred to in the answer to question No. 2585.6073Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—As Acting Minister for Defence, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The term `engagement' refers to events approved by the Chief of Air Force.(2) (a) No.(b) Mr Mark Barnett, the editor of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association magazine.(c) 29 November 1997.(d) No. The Roulettes' `engagements' for each six month display period originate from requests received from various organisations. Consideration is given to each request and the program is then forwarded to the Chief of Air Force for approval. Many requests for fly-pasts from charitable and other organisations are received after the Roulettes' program is finalised, and often at very short notice. Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis, and approval for the Roulettes to satisfy these requests may be given, in order to maximise the public exposure of the Australian Defence Force. While not included in the published program of the Roulettes, such flights are accommodated wherever possible and usually involve only minor adjustments to the aircraft's transit flight path. An examination of current procedures has revealed that such requests should be approved by the Chief of Air Force. Records have been checked back to May 1995. That examination shows that over this period and probably earlier, Air Force personnel have not always followed the approval procedures, with flypasts being approved at a lower level by Air Force personnel acting in good faith to maximise exposure of the Roulettes to the public. Four examples are: a 7 May 1995 fly past at Nambour for an "Australia Remembers" event, a 25 September 1995 display for Camp Quality children at RAAF Amberley, a 25 November 1995 fly past at Yarrawonga for a power boat show, and an 18 March 1996 fly past for the World Bowls Championship in Adelaide. In the instance the honourable member referred to in his question, the flypast was authorised by the Commanding Officer of the Central Flying School. This fly-past should have been regarded as qualifying as an `engagement' and the appropriate procedures followed for its approval and reporting. All personnel associated with Roulette operations have been reminded of the need to comply with the approval process. 6074(Question No. 2915)29156074Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) What is the Government's response to the recent International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions Rio Tinto network meeting held between 7 and 9 February 1998 in Johannesburg, South Africa.(2) What measures has the Government implemented to ensure that Rio Tinto conducts operations in Australia in full compliance with human rights, labour laws and standards for occupational health and safety and the environment.6074Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government has no response.(2) The Government expects all companies operating in Australia to comply with Australian laws, including those relating to workplace relations, human rights, occupational health and safety and the environment.6074(Question No. 2928)29286074Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6074Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board of the Australia Council provided 2 grants totalling $31,000 to the Federal electorate of Oxley during the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years.Records show a grant of $10,000 was made to Miss Michelle Buchanan in 1996-97 for the production of a book of poetry and that $21,000 was provided to the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre in 1997-98 for the development and subsequent production of a play. The Department of Communications and the Arts is unable to provide an answer for the 1998-99 financial year at this time.6074(Question No. 2960)29606074Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Was $6 million provided to the States and Territories for rural and regional youth counselling services under the National Youth Suicide Strategy; if so, (a) on what basis was the funding provided and (b) were outcomes measures, performance indicators or monitoring mechanisms agreed for the provision of the funds; if not, why not; if so, (i) what are they and (ii) will he provide a copy of the information in respect of each State and Territory.(2) What sum did each State and Territory receive in funding for rural and regional youth counselling services.(3) What progress has been made in the development of rural and youth counselling services in each State and Territory.(4) What consultation, and with whom, did the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments undertake in the development of rural and youth counselling services.(5) Was $6 million provided to Lifeline and Kids Helpline under the National Youth Suicide Strategy; if so, (a) what outcomes measures, performance indicators and monitoring mechanisms were established to assess progress, (b) what progress has been made and (c) will he provide copies of the contracts involved.(6) What progress has been made in the development of programs for parents under the National Youth Suicide Strategy and what consultation, and with whom, has taken place.(7) Have education and training programs been provided to professionals under the National Youth Suicide Strategy; if so, (a) what programs, (b) by whom were they provided, (c) what funding was provided and (d) how were the providers chosen.(8) What progress has been made by the Hunter Institute for Mental Health in encouraging universities to teach youth suicide prevention strategies to relevant professions.(9) Which professions at which universities are being taught the strategies referred to in part (8).(10) What funding has the Commonwealth provided the Hunter Institute for Mental Health for the purpose referred to in part (8).(11) Will he provide a copy of the relevant contract with the Hunter Institute for Mental Health. (12) What sum did each State and Territory receive in funding for education and training under the National Youth Suicide Strategy.(13) Who was educated or trained under the funding referred to in part (12) and how were they selected.(14) What was the nature of the education or training and by whom was it provided.(15) Was $1 million allocated for research into childhood mental health under the National Youth Suicide Strategy; if so, (a) what progress has been made, (b) to whom was the funding provided, (c) on what basis was it provided, (d) how were the recipients chosen and (e) what product will they provide to his Department.(16) Has $1.413 million been provided for improved follow-up for young persons presenting to hospitals and health services following self-harm; if so, (a) to whom has funding been provided, (b) how were they chosen, (c) what sum was provided to each, (d) were outcomes or performance indicators developed; if not, why not; if so, what were they, and (e) what progress has been made in each case.(17) Has $1.35 million been provided for support to general practitioners and health workers to identify, treat and refer young persons at risk of suicide; if so, (a) to whom has funding been provided, (b) how were they chosen, (c) what sum was provided to each, (d) were outcomes or performance indicators developed; if not, why not; if so, what were they, and (e) what progress has been made in each case.(18) Has $896 000 been provided to build communication networks to share existing initiatives and services; if so, (a) to whom has funding been provided, (b) how were they chosen, (c) what sum was provided to each, (d) were outcomes or performance indicators developed; if not, why not; if so, what were they, and (e) what progress has been made in each case.(19) Has $1.35 million been provided to develop a media information kit encouraging responsible reporting of youth suicide issues; if so, (a) to whom has funding been provided, (b) how were they chosen, (c) what sum was provided to each, (d) were outcomes or performance indicators developed; if not, why not; if so, what were they, and (e) what progress has been made in each case.(20) Have pilot suicide prevention projects for young persons been established; if so, (a) what progress has been made on each project, (b) who is undertaking each project, (c) what funding has been provided to each project, (d) on what basis was each project chosen, (e) what outcomes measures, performance indicators and monitoring mechanisms have been established and (f) what product will be provided to his Department in relation to each project.6075Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) Yes(a) Funding was allocated between States and Territories on the basis of rural youth populations, with a loading for remote populations.(b) Monitoring mechanisms were agreed.(i) Monitoring is conducted through reporting systems already established between the Commonwealth and States and Territories for funds provided to States and Territories under the National Mental Health Strategy. Under this system States and Territories report annually on progress with administering the funds.(ii) Monitoring requirements are the same for each State and Territory.(2) Funding to each State and Territory for rural and regional youth counselling services is:State or Territory$NSW1,800,000VIC1,152,000QLD1,656,000SA360,000WA564,000TAS270,000NT198,000ACT0Totals6,000,000(3) All State and Territory Governments have commenced activities.(4) The Commonwealth developed the funding agreements in consultation with State and Territory Governments. Responsibility for further development, including consultation, rests with State and Territory Governments.(5) Yes.(a) Grant agreements exist with both Lifeline and Kids Helpline.Where relevant, projects funded under the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy have standardised reporting and evaluation mechanisms. These include:. the delivery of three monthly progress reports specifying progress against agreed time lines and services including progress with evaluation of the project;. development of a detailed evaluation plan including qualitative and quantitative methodology for process, impact and outcome evaluation compared to project objectives;. revisions to the evaluation plan on the advice of the Department and its expert youth suicide prevention evaluation working group;. provision of a final report including the outcomes of the evaluation.This standardised process allows for rigorous accountability and reporting to be applied across a wide range of projects using the clinical tools and outcome indicators most closely connected to project objectives. Payments are linked to the provision of quarterly reports and satisfactory progress in meeting project milestones.Lifeline and Kids Help Line have complied with this process and have provided plans detailing evaluation processes and measures relating to issues such as service to young callers, community networks, training for telephone counsellors and enhanced data and information.(b) Both projects have commenced, additional staff have been hired and extensions and enhancements to services have resulted.(c) Grant agreements are consistent with standard Departmental arrangements for grants administration and reflect the purpose and accountability requirements outlined above.(6) The $3 million allocated for funding for programs for parents was advertised for open competitive tender through major daily newspapers in all States and Territories. A working group with expertise in youth suicide prevention, child and adolescent mental health and support to families was appointed to assist the Department with selection of recommended tenderers. Contracts are in place for seven projects which are listed at Attachment 1.(7) Yes.(a), (b), (c), and (d). Details of funded projects are at Attachment 1.(8) Hunter Institute for Mental Health has produced a background report regarding existing relevant curriculum and activities, has made recommendations regarding which universities and professions are to be targeted, has developed draft curriculum materials and is currently trialling and evaluating those materials.(9) Hunter Institute is working on undergraduate nursing, secondary education and journalism curriculum materials in conjunction with the universities listed at Attachment 2.(10) Funding for Hunter Institute of Mental Health is $300,000.(11) The Contract is consistent with the standard Departmental contract and the information previously provided. Accountability and evaluation arrangements are as outlined in response to Question 5.(12)—New South Wales$300,000Victoria$300,000Queensland$200,000Western Australia$200,000South Australia$200,000Tasmania$100,000Australian Capital Territory$100,000Northern Territory$100,000(13) Grants were provided to State and Territory Governments for education and training to professionals already in the workforce. This funding is being used to provide education and training to a range of professionals with the actual focus of training depending on needs identified by the State or Territory Government. Groups to be covered by States and Territories are expected to include: mental health workers, rural health and welfare staff, hospital emergency staff, youth workers, social workers, indigenous health workers and teachers.States and Territories provided proposals for use of the funds prior to release of payments. They will provide final reports including project evaluations and information such as the types and numbers of professionals trained.(14) In their proposals and progress reports to date, States and Territories advise that training includes a range of activities such as workshops, attendance at conferences, development and training in clinical protocols and procedures, publication of booklets, manuals and pamphlets. The training is being provided by State and Territory Government agencies, existing training providers and conference organisers, or specially selected tenderers and sub-contractors.(15) Yes.(a) The Department is working with the National Health and Medical Research Council to determine those priorities in youth suicide prevention research which have the most capacity to guide future policy and program development.A workshop of leading youth suicide prevention researchers was held in July 1997 to assist with identifying priorities for future research. Three literature reviews have been commissioned covering issues of epidemiology, risk factors and identification of effective interventions.Outcomes from the workshop and the literature reviews will be combined to develop a strategic research agenda. The strategic research agenda will be published along with the supporting evidence from the literature reviews, and will guide the development and funding of future youth suicide prevention research in Australia.(b) Funding of $1 million has been provided to the National Health and Medical Research Council which is working with the Department to administer the funding for the research. Almost $100,000 has been disbursed for facilitation of the workshop and development of the literature reviews.The remaining $900,000 will be allocated to research projects determined as priorities in accordance with the strategic research agenda once completed.The literature reviews are being conducted by: Dr Annette L. Beautrais of the Canterbury Suicide Project, Christchurch School of Medicine; Dr George Patton of the Centre for Adolescent Health, University of Melbourne; Dr Chris Cantor or the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University. Drafts of the literature reviews have been received and are being amended in accordance with peer review feedback prior to publication.(c) Funding was provided to the National Health and Medical Research Council as the most appropriate body to administer this funding. The workshops and literature reviews were commissioned to form the evidence base for the strategic research agenda.(d) The literature reviews were advertised for competitive tender and selected by a panel including eminent researchers in the field and representatives of the Department and the National Health and Medical Research Council.(e) Products will include a strategic national research agenda, publications summarising the research evidence for particular approaches to youth suicide prevention, and outcomes of further strategic research projects.(16) Yes.(a), (c) and (e). Details of projects funded are at Attachment 1.(b) Area Health Services were chosen as demonstration projects through an open competitive tender process.The joint Colleges of Emergency Medicine and Psychiatry were asked to work with the Department on the development of protocols for their members due to their importance in professional education and training and setting standards for these groups.(d) Monitoring systems have been developed as outlined in the answer to Question 5.Outcome indicators vary between projects but include such things as assessment of critical pathways to care, changes in service delivery systems, improvement in attendance and compliance with follow up services, rates of repeat suicide attempts and improvement on measures of mental well-being. Each project will report against relevant indicators in their final report.(17) Yes.(a) and (c). Details of projects funded are provided at Attachment 1.(b) Projects were chosen through an open competitive tendering process.(d) Monitoring and evaluation is in accordance with the process outlined in the answer to Question 5.Outcome indicators include indicators of the numbers of professionals trained, response to training, increases in knowledge and skills, and impact on young patients. Projects will provide final reports including the results of the evaluations.(e) All projects are nearing completion. Final reports are expected to be available for all three projects this calendar year. Interim reports indicate satisfactory progress.(18) Funding of over $2 million has been provided specifically to build communication networks, to share knowledge regarding existing initiatives and to enhance services. Other projects under the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy also have information and dissemination components, such as the telephone counselling initiatives.Responses to questions (a), (b), (c) (d) and (e) are provided in project details in Attachment 1.(19) Funding of $30,000 has been allocated to the development of a media resource kit on the reporting and portrayal of suicide.(a) Funding has been provided to Suicide Prevention Australia for the development of a media resource kit.(b) Suicide Prevention Australia was invited to work with the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention because of their existing role and knowledge in the area of youth suicide and the media.(c) A total of $30,000 has been allocated. Additional funding will be allocated for printing and distribution of the resource kit.(d) Payment is dependent upon production of the resource kit in a format acceptable to the Department. (e) A draft resource kit has been provided and consultations undertaken with the media industry. Further modifications are being made prior to publication of the kit.(20) Yes. A number of projects already reported in other questions are pilot projects. Additional pilot projects including answers to Questions 20 (a) (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f ) are provided in Attachment 1.Projects funded as demonstration projects were required to meet reporting and evaluation requirements as described in the answer to Question 5.Attachment 1Details of ProjectsQ6 Parenting ProjectsThe seven projects to receive funding under the $3 million allocated for Programs for Parents are:. Jesuit Social Services, Parenting Australia, Victoria. Victorian Parenting Centre, Victoria. Social Change Media, New South Wales. Youthlink, Western Australia. Griffith University, Queensland. Family Action Centre, University of New South Wales. Tangentyere Council, Northern Territory Additionally, a contribution of $150,000 was allocated from the project's budget to support the ReachOut! Internet site to provide information and support avenues to parents through the internet. Collaboration and cooperation in providing support and information to parents has also been established with other NYSPS funded projects such as Lifeline and Kids Help Line, who are designating specific parent-help and referral lines, and with the AusEInet project.The national Programs for Parents framework is based on the principles that positive communication and supportive family environments are critical to promoting good mental health amongst children and adolescents and that extra support for families facing difficulties, or in crisis, is vital.Based on these principles, the national framework aims to assist parents to:. promote health and well being in young people;. strengthen protective factors, such as resilience and self esteem;. encourage the early detection and treatment of mental health problems; and. identify how to recognise and seek help when depression or other mental health risk factors affect their children.To further support the national initiative a National Coordination and Liaison Officer has been appointed for the Programs for Parents. The Coordinator's role will be to assist with information, coordination and consultation between projects and to provide a contact point for people interested in the Programs for Parents across Australia.Q7 Education and training for professionalsFunding to State and Territory GovernmentsGrants totalling $1.5 million were provided to State and Territory Governments for education and training to professionals already in the workforce. States and Territories are providing programs directly or subcontracting with other agencies.Hunter Institute of Mental HealthHunter Institute of Mental Health received $300,000 to encourage the inclusion of youth suicide prevention information in curriculum for relevant professions at universities. Hunter Institute was chosen following a select tender process. Programs will be delivered by university faculties around Australia.Victoria UniversityVictoria University received $200,000 to develop, accredit, trial and market nationally accredited curriculum materials in youth suicide prevention for youth workers, Indigenous health workers and juvenile justice workers trained in the vocational education sector. Training will be delivered by a number of vocational education providers around Australia.Victoria University was chosen by the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) in an open competitive tender process to develop accredited national curriculum materials based on national competency standards for youth workers. The University was invited to supplement their work for ANTA with the development of additional materials specific to youth suicide prevention.Q16 Follow up of young persons presenting to hospitals and health services following self harmIllawarra Area Health Service—Shoalhaven/Milton —$117,700Project has been completed and draft report has been submitted.Peninsula Health Care Network—$138,000Project has commenced and indicates satisfactory progress.Central Sydney Area Health Service—$179,825Project has commenced and submitted progress reports indicating satisfactory progress.South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service/Northern Rivers Area Health Service—$549,956 Project has commenced and submitted progress reports indicating satisfactory progress.The University of Western Sydney- Nepean, Blacktown Hospital and Mt Druitt Hospital—$160,240Project has commenced and progress reports indicate satisfactory progress.Mackay District Health Service Queensland—$214,970Project has commenced and staff have been recruited.Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (Joint project with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists)—$87,000Project has commenced, with substantial work still to be completed.Q17 Projects to support general practitioners and community health personnelSouthern Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, South Australia—$650,000.Project is nearing completion. Progress reports indicate excellent progress including a number of national and international awards. Final report expected mid-1998.Perth and Coastal Divisions of General Practice, Western Australia—$450,000Project is nearing completion. Progress reports indicate excellent progress. Final report expected mid-1998. Logan and South East Queensland Rural Divisions of General Practice—$250,000Project is due for completion later this year. Progress reports indicate project is proceeding well.Q18 Projects to build communication networks, share knowledge regarding existing initiatives and enhance services.Korobra Youth Forum—2nd Pacific Rim Youth Health Congress—$25,000Youth Forum funding was offered by the Minister following a recommendation from the Youth Suicide Prevention Advisory Group that further youth participation activities be supported at that event. The Youth Forum has been completed and a report has been provided.Australian Institute of Family Studies—Communications Strategy—$487,000Funding for the Communications Strategy was approved following an open competitive tender process. The project will provide a number of products including national stocktakes, workshops, bulletins and papers and regular progress reports linked to payments. It will also provide an evaluation report and final report for the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. The project has commenced and has published the first national stocktake of youth suicide prevention programs and established an Internet Home page including information regarding youth suicide prevention and relevant research. Evaluation and monitoring will be according to the standard procedures described in Question 5.Support to State and Territory Governments for participation in national stocktake of youth suicide prevention programs—$182,000States and Territories are funded to participate in the two national stocktakes of youth suicide prevention activities conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Payment depends upon contribution of appropriate information to the Stocktake. The first national stocktake has been completed.National Coroners Society—$20,000Funding was offered to the National Coroners Society to facilitate a report on options for improving collection and collation of coronial data on suicides. The outcome of the project is a report. A draft report has been received.Strategy Publications—$25,000Publications under the Strategy are funded through normal Departmental publications processes. Publications to date have included Youth Suicide in Australia: a background monograph, 2nd Edition, Youth Suicide in Australia: the national youth suicide prevention strategy and National Consultations with Children and Young People on Mental Health Issues, a regular update of activities under the Strategy and an Internet Home Page. Under the mail out project described below, records are kept of requests for publications and of contacts with relevant Internet home pages.Wollongong University—Guidelines and Resource Guide—$223,000Wollongong University was appointed following a select tender process. Evaluation and monitoring procedures are in accordance with the processes nominated in Question 5. The University has submitted an evaluation plan which includes indicators such as the appropriateness and acceptability of products to the target audience, and the influence on education and training practice in youth suicide prevention. The draft guidelines for education and training programs are being revised and finalised, and a consultation is being conducted regarding the resource guide.International Association for Suicide Prevention—$5,000The International Association for Suicide Prevention gained funding as a conference of national significance under the National Mental Health Strategy. Additional funding to facilitate the attendance of young people and a tour of international experts was offered from the National Youth Suicide Prevention Strategy. The International Association for Suicide Prevention has provided a report on the outcomes of their 1997 Adelaide Conference.Southern Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service-AusEinet—$600,000The AusEinet project was selected following an open competitive tender process for an early intervention network project totalling $2 million, with the additional $1.4 million from the National Mental Health Strategy. Evaluation and monitoring is in accordance with the processes set out in Question 5. An evaluation plan has been developed. The project has commenced and progress reports indicate satisfactory progress.Reach Out! Internet project—$450,000The Reach Out! Internet project was supported by the Minister for Family Services for funding following a number of submissions from the project for funding under the Strategy. An evaluation plan for assessment of the outcomes of the project has been developed and includes assessments of issues such as the number and type of contacts with the site, user feedback and tracking of outcomes for some users. The Reach Out! Internet site has been developed and launched and has been successful in attracting support from the Triple JJJ radio station for fundraising to maintain the site once Strategy funding is completed. Australian Institute of Family Studies- Mail Out—$50,000The contract is to mail out youth suicide documents, updates and publications. Selection was by a select tender process. The activity has commenced, has developed a mailing list for bulk mail-outs to interested parties and is reporting monthly on requests for documents and responses.Q20 Pilot suicide prevention programsFirearms and Access to Means of Suicide Project, Coastal and Wheatbelt Public Health Unit—$120,000Will undertake and evaluate an activity to reduce access to firearms in a Western Australian rural community. The project has commenced and submitted one progress report indicating satisfactory progress. The group were invited to apply on the basis of an assessment that the region has unusually high rates of firearm suicides in the region and the capacity to develop and evaluate an intervention. They will provide an evaluation report including focus groups and quantitative measures of compliance with firearms safety legislation and firearms injury rates. Products will include reports of the success of the model and media and educational materials."Mind Matters" Consortium including Sydney University, Melbourne University, Deakin University and the Australian Council of Health, Physical Education and Recreation—$400,000Mind Matters is a national project to support a health promoting schools approach to mental health promotion and suicide prevention in 24 pilot schools. The project has commenced and selection and training of participating pilot schools has been conducted. Total funding for the project including contributions from the National Mental Health Strategy and Public Health funding totals over $1 million. The consortium was selected following a select tender process. Monitoring requirements include an external evaluation by the Hunter Institute of Mental Health. Products will include curriculum materials, professional development materials, Internet site and publications, handbook of resources, reports.Intervention Programs for Young People Who Have Attempted SuicideAll projects in this area have commenced and some are almost completed. Providers were selected on the basis of an open competitive tender process. Evaluation reports will include qualitative and quantitative measures such as well-being of participants, pathways to care and interagency linkages assessing the success of the models used. Products will include peer education materials, videos and reports. Providers and Funding:Cellblock Youth Health Service (Central Sydney Area Health Service)$250,000High Street Youth Health Services (Western Sydney Area Health Service)$155,000Centacare—Catholic Family Services, Adelaide$500,000The Bridge Youth Health Service, Shepparton$50,000Maroondah Hospital$100,100Intervention Services for Young People with Mental IllnessAll projects in this area have commenced. An open competitive tender process was conducted. Evaluations will include measures of mental health and well-being, suicide risk and service models and linkages. Products will include project reports, conference papers and principles of good practice.Providers and Funding:Young People and Psychiatric Illness—Intervention and Assessment, Central Coast Area Health Service, NSW (YPPI-IA)$332,592"Out of the Blues" Mood Disorders Unit—Southern Child and Adolescent Mental Heath Service, South Australia,$400,000 Lifespan—Centre for Young People's Mental Health, Melbourne$275,000Support to Young People Who Are Marginalised, Homeless or DisaffectedAll projects in this group have commenced and some are approaching completion. Projects were selected on the basis of an open competitive tender process. Outcome indicators will be specific to project aims and target groups. Products will include reports outlining the models trialled, evaluation results and a range of tools and dissemination products to assist other projects to replicate successful models.Providers and Funding:Western Australian Aids Council$212,100Young Women's Project, Victoria$70,000Benelong's Haven, New South Wales$160,000Jesuit Social Services$250,000Support to rural communities project, Charles Sturt University—Gilmore Centre, $644,000Projects have commenced in five project sites around Australia. An interim evaluation report has been provided. The University was selected by an open competitive tender. Products will include a training manual, newsletter, data and information regarding suicide in rural communities and reports.By Young People for Young People in Rural CommunitiesAll projects have commenced and some are almost completed. Providers were selected based on an open competitive tender process. Products will include culturally appropriate training materials, service models suitable for a variety of small rural communities and reports.Providers and Funding:Kyogle High School$64,500Galiwin'ku Community Council$199,984East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative, Meerindoo$246,000Coober Pedy Multicultural Forum$200,000Attachment 2Universities working with Hunter Institute of Mental Health on development of undergraduate curriculum for nursing, teaching or journalism.Nursing:Southern Cross UniversityUniversity of WollongongQueensland University of TechnologyUniversity of SydneyGriffith UniversityJames Cook UniversityUniversity of the Northern TerritoryUniversity of BallaratUniversity of Sydney- CumberlandUniversity of Western SydneyMonash University-PeninsularEdith Cowan UniversityVictoria University of Technology—Footscray CampusUniversity of Western Sydney—Nepean CampusAustralian Catholic University—Mercy CampusAustralian Catholic University—McAuley CampusRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Technology, SydneyUniversity of Central QueenslandUniversity of TasmaniaUniversity of CanberraSecondary Education:Australian Catholic UniversityUniversity of New EnglandNewcastle UniversityUniversity of SydneyLa Trobe UniversityCharles Sturt UniversityUniversity of Tasmania at LauncestonUniversity of MelbourneDeakin UniversityCentral Queensland UniversityAustralian Catholic University—Christ CampusAustralian Catholic University—Mercy CampusUniversity of Melbourne—Hawthorne CampusUniversity of Western SydneyUniversity of BallaratUniversity of Technology, SydneyJournalism:Griffith UniversityUniversity of NewcastleUniversity of Western Sydney Charles Sturt UniversityQueensland University of TechnologyCentral Queensland UniversityMurdoch UniversityUniversity of Wollongong6083(Question No. 3034)30346083O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 June 1998:How many persons were employed on a (a) full-time or (b) part-time or casual basis at the Geelong office of the Australian Taxation Office at (i) 31 March 1996 and (ii) 31 March 1998.6083Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The number of persons employed on either a full-time or part-time basis for the years 1996 and 1998 at the Geelong branch of the Australian Taxation Office is shown in the following table:YearNo.Full-time employeesNo.Part-time employees(i) 1996(a) 235(b) 16(ii) 1998(a) 214(b) 20