Editors --- "Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 - Digest" [2007] AUIndigLawRw 22; (2007) 11(1) Australian Indigenous Law Review 131

• Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006

Inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2006

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Completed 23 February 2007

The proposed Native Title Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth) would represent the first legislative change to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) since the changes made in 1998 in response to the High Court’s judgment in Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1. The primary purpose of the Bill is to streamline a number of aspects of the native title system by:

• introducing an independent review of native title claims resolution processes;
• increasing measures to encourage the effective functioning of Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs);
• reforming the native title non-claimants (respondents) financial assistance program to encourage agreement-making rather than litigation;
• introducing measures to improve the effectiveness of Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs); and
• increasing dialogue and consultation with the state and territory governments to promote and encourage more transparent practices in the resolution of native title.

The majority report of the Committee recommended that the Bill supported more efficient processes in the area of native title, and particularly supported the amendments in Schedule 2 of Bill which will empower the NNTT to provide registration, education, research and mediation services. The majority recommended that the Bill be passed, subject to a number of changes. These changes include increasing the minimum period of recognition of a Native Title Representative Body to two years; finalising the funding arrangements of the Federal Government to PBCs as a matter of priority. While the majority report also supported the introduction of new Division 4AA - which provides for the NNTT to conduct a review of documents regarding whether a native title claim group holds native title rights and interests – it recommended that this change be monitored by the Attorney-General’s Department.

In contrast, the minority report of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens considered that many of the proposed reforms were fundamentally flawed. In particular, their report suggested that the proposed reforms to NTRBs would compromise their independence and capacity to perform their necessary functions in the native title system. Further, the minority report considered that expanding the powers of the NNTT was ill-advised since most of the stakeholders in the native title process did not have confidence in the capacity or expertise of the NNTT to conduct effective mediation.

The full text of this Inquiry is available at the Parliament of Australia’s Senate website: <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate> .