Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026

Mr PIKE (Bowman—Opposition Whip) (16:57): I start by thanking the Attorney-General for being here today, in stark contrast to some of her colleagues. It is good that she is here because I've got an issue to raise in her portfolio in relation to a matter that is of great importance to my community. When you scan through the appropriation of the Attorney-General's portfolio, you'll see expenditure related to the native title system.

You'll see new investments in the Native Title Tribunal and you'll see references to the goal of supporting native title representative bodies and native title service providers and proscribed body corporates within the native title system. But what you won't find is any reference to supporting those entities that find themselves on the receiving end of a native title claim.

In the previous coalition government's last budget, you would have found a very modest amount of funding for the Native Title Respondents Scheme, but you won't see that allocation within this appropriation. Why is this? Because of the ideological decision made by this government to abolish Commonwealth funding for respondents in native title claims.

This was an ideologically driven decision and an unfair cut to achieve the longstanding pet policy objective of the former attorney-general, the member for Isaacs. It is a decision I implore the new attorney-general, if she's committed to representing all Australians equally, to revisit. The Native Title Respondents Scheme provided grants of financial assistance to respondents in native title claims to help them meet their obligations under the federal act.

Since the inception of the scheme, support has been provided to 469 pastoralists, 375 local governments, 319 fishers, 91 miners, eight recreational users and many others. In the grand scheme of the federal budget and even within the AG portfolio, this would be a small appropriation, but it is one that would make a significant difference to the community that I represent.

Redland City Council in my electorate is seeking clarity from the federal court to determine if native title has been extinguished on 2½ thousand council owned or managed sites within the Quandamooka coast native title claim area. The land in question includes some of my city's most iconic sites, such as the Wellington Point Reserve, the Cleveland Point Reserve, the Cleveland Cemetery, the Redlands Performing Arts Centre and even the council chambers themselves.

It also includes countless nature reserves, playgrounds and other community assets. Understandably, there is a growing level of community consternation about what a change of ownership on these land parcels would mean for how they are maintained, accessed and enjoyed by locals. The mounting costs of Redland City Council as a respondent to the Quandamooka Coast native title claim continues to place unreasonable pressure on planning and land use certainty and on the limited capacity of Redland City ratepayers and services.

There are many sporting and community organisations who currently lease land off Redland City Council which now have had their tenure called into question due to this claim. There is a real risk that the Redlands native title claim will drag out in the courts for years, costing both sides millions and ultimately delivering poor outcomes for both our Indigenous and broader communities.

Two weeks of hearings took place last month, and more are due in December. But, as the matter progresses, the legal costs are growing and growing for Redland ratepayers. Figures from the Parliamentary Budget Office reveal that in the last decade there has been a huge funding discrepancy between Commonwealth money given to support claimants and money provided to assist with the legal obligations of defendants.

Over the last decade, the federal government has provided $1.028 billion to support native title claimants but only $9.78 million to respondents, such as local governments, farmers and other organisations. Of course, this government has now abolished that funding altogether. Will the Attorney-General appreciate the scale of this imbalance and take the action required to correct it?

Unfortunately, there is clearly a sense from within the Labor government that stacking the deck in favour of native title claimants is a compassionate and progressive thing to do. I don't doubt the sincerity of their motives, but I simply can't agree that seeking to precontrive these outcomes is in the best interests of our communities across the country or even in the spirit of the act.

This should not be about ideology; this should be about fairness. The government's role should be ensuring that all stakeholders can meet their obligations under the federal act. In order to ensure a fair and equitable outcome, I ask the government to provide equal funding to support both claimants and respondents.

Will the Attorney-General continue the ideological obsessions of a predecessor or reconsider the scrapping of the native title respondent funding scheme?