ATSI Land ... Bill; ATSI Communities (Justice, Land & Other Matters)
Posted by Administrator (admin) on May 15 2008
2008 >>

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (4.33 pm):

In this cognate debate I would like to address the simplification of corporate ownership of transferred lands as provided for in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Amendment Bill 2008. The bill provides for the transfer of ownership of certain lands to Aboriginal people who are particularly concerned with those lands. What that means is that not only is it available for transfer to an Indigenous land trust but it must be transferred as soon as practicable. All Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deeds of
grant in trust are transferable, as is any Aboriginal reserve land and any other land that is declared transferable. The ownership mechanism employed in the legislation is for a corporate body called a ‘land trust’ to be created upon the delivery of the relevant deed of title to the grantees.

The grantees hold the land on behalf of themselves and the wider group of people concerned with the land. Therefore, the land
trust is the legal entity which owns the land but holding it in trust for the benefit of the grantees and others. Being a corporate body, a land trust requires office-bearers, members, a constitution and rules to operate just like any other company. Governance responsibilities include the holding of regular meetings, the recording of all decisions made at the meetings, the keeping of proper accounts and the provision on a regular basis of information to the register of land trusts.

Depending on the level of business undertaken during any reporting period, the requirements to be fulfilled by a land trust can be significant. In recognising the difficulties that trustees and others may have in complying with these governance requirements, I understand that the Department of Natural Resources and Water will undertake capacity-building programs with the members of land trusts.
However, there are over 60 land trusts across the state, many of which are located in the more remote areas.

With the recognition of native title by the High Court in 1992 after the commencement of the Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act, there came another process of recognising Indigenous Queenslanders’ rights to land. The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 was enacted without particular reference to the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land
Act. It also established a corporate body mechanism to hold any native title rights on trust or as agent for the native title holders. Such bodies are known as ‘registered native title body corporates’. These bodies likewise have office-bearers, members, a constitution and rules and formal reporting requirements. Therefore, if any Indigenous Queenslanders who were grantees of land under the Aboriginal Land Act or the Torres Strait Islander Land Act and also obtain a native title determination in their favour, they are
required to establish, manage and maintain two corporations—one for each set of rights; that is, one for the freehold title and one for the native title rights and interests.

This is even where the two sets of rights are over the one area of land. Before this bill, the Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act were inflexible on this issue. A land trust is the only entity which can be appointed as the corporate owner of transferred land. The Native Title Act is equally inflexible with its requirement that native title rights can only be held on trust by a prescribed body corporate as an agent to the native title holders. The present situation is onerous for people who have secured rights under both sets of legislation. There are a number of
examples across the state where this has occurred. I understand that this matter has been an issue for several years.

The Palm Island Select Committee recognised that the tenure arrangements and processes with deed of grant in trust communities need to be simplified. I think the member for Warrego may have
mentioned that the former federal member Mal Brough said, ‘Just give the residents their own property,’ and many other people have said that. That is an oversimplification of the situation. On Palm Island, for instance, there is the interests of the traditional owners, there is also the interests of the historical owners, but superimposed on that is an absolute mishmash of titles and claims over the land. That title confusion has been a real impediment to the provision of government and private infrastructure on the
island. This legislation will go some way to resolving those issues. Of course, other people have mentioned the 99-year leases for individuals.

The requirement to have two separate corporate bodies constituted by the same people and relating to the same land is a duplication and is unnecessary for the proper management of the land. Accordingly, this bill makes provision for the minister to make grants of land to registered native title body corporates. A new section 27A is to be inserted permitting the minister to appoint a registered
native title body corporate as grantee of transferable land. Further, the bill also amends section 27 of the
Aboriginal Land Act requiring that, when a grant is made to a registered native title body corporate, the
deed of grant must show that the land is held on trust for the native title holders.
It also provides that information must be included in the deed of grant identifying those native title
holders. These changes have required further supporting amendments to the acts. For example,
sections 10 and 11 are amended respectively whereby the meanings of Aboriginal land, transferrable
land and transferred land are changed to accommodate the new power of the minister to appoint
registered native title body corporates as grantees. These amendments serve not only to achieve one ofthe main objectives of the review of the Aboriginal Land Act—namely, to better align native title and
Aboriginal Land Act outcomes—more importantly, they also have the real potential to relieve the
grantees of land under the legislation of having to unnecessarily establish and run two corporate
trustees in respect of the one area of land. I commend the bill to the House.

Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 2:21 AM