Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When one listens to the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, his speech sounds reasonable and rational in some respects, but as a nation we really have to confront the fact that over 200 years of European settlement we have a situation where Indigenous Australians have an entirely unsatisfactory position in life. We find that they live for 20 years less than non-Indigenous males, we find that there is an infant mortality situation which a First World country ought not to be proud of and we find that successive governments over the years have endeavoured to salve the nation’s collective conscience by throwing money at the problem. I am more than happy to spend whatever money we as a government and as a nation need to redress Indigenous disadvantage, and in 2006 it is very important that Indigenous Australians also share in the prosperity of modern Australia.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to have a major positive impact on the lives of Indigenous Australians. The amendments set out in the bill have arisen as a result of three separate reports into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Three reports have been conducted over a period of almost a decade, and all three made recommendations for changes that will help to streamline and update the provisions in the act to ensure improved outcomes for both Australia’s Indigenous people and those relevant stakeholders who play a large and important part in their lives. I think there has been an excessive focus in recent years on self-determination and an insufficient emphasis on accountability and outcomes. It really is important that, as a nation, we look at what we can do to improve the situation of Indigenous Australians.

I just think that so often the Labor Party in the past—like the Labor Party today—has remained some distance from reality. It is all about slogans, tokens and talking up what can be done, but this government is determined to bring about practical reconciliation. We are determined to make sure that there is the same level of accountability for Indigenous organisations as there is for other organisations in the general community. We need, in my view, to convince the Australian people that there are the appropriate levels of accountability with respect to Indigenous spending and, if the government is able to convince the people of Australia that this has at last been brought about, we will find that the government will be able to obtain the political support necessary to spend the additional dollars which are undoubtedly necessary for future expenditure in the area of Indigenous assistance.

The underlying objectives of the amendment in the bill being debated here today are to improve access to Aboriginal land for the purpose of development, specifically mining; to introduce an improved decision-making framework for Aboriginal people for land use; and to encourage improvements in the living conditions in both economic and social terms for Aboriginals living in the Northern Territory.

The three reports which fed into the legislation include the Reeves report, which found that Aboriginal people are not benefiting economically as much as could be possible if administration and licensing of Aboriginal land were streamlined. John Reeves—and the member for Lingiari would well know John Reeves, who was a former distinguished member of this place—is someone who does not look at the Indigenous situation through ideological perspectives; he looks at it as someone who wants to bring about real, meaningful, substantial, important and positive change for Indigenous Australians. The reports which fed into the legislation suggested changes to the act to enable greater ease in negotiating agreements for development, especially mining on Aboriginal land. The Reeves report noted that an inalienable freehold title to over 40 per cent of the Northern Territory land has brought insignificant benefits to the Aboriginal residents of the Northern Territory. I think that most honourable members would agree that this is indisputably a fact. We find that, while Indigenous residents in the Northern Territory have received the dollars, they certainly have not received the outcomes. Anyone who can defend the failed process we have seen over the last 200 years in dealing with Indigenous matters, in my view, has very little credibility at all.

The Reeves report also noted that changes to the act could make things better. It recommended that 18 regional land councils be formed under the umbrella of a single peak body to be known as the Northern Territory Aboriginal Council as well as a modified administration system for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land that has reduced regulations. Personally, I believe that the current structure of legislation for land rights in the Northern Territory is fatally flawed. I do not believe the 1976 legislation was appropriate and, while it may have made some people have a warm, inner glow and feel good, ultimately the people the legislation was intended to benefit—namely, the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory—have simply been sold short.

A second report released by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs suggested that the recommendations of the Reeves report were perhaps too aggressive and suggested incremental changes. Thirdly, the Manning report recommended changes to the time allowable for the negotiation of exploration and mining leases. A change suggested by the report was a period slightly longer than two years, which takes into account the weather patterns in the Top End. Further time extensions were also allowable under the Manning report suggestions. While there are differences in the recommendations of the three reports, there are also similarities, the main one being the general consensus that the act in its present form can be improved and that these improvements could have a positive impact financially and socially on the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.

I am somewhat attracted to the recommendations made by John Reeves QC. He is someone who has put aside his former political mantra and is prepared to basically cut out the verbiage, to sit down and say, ‘We have tried it every other way. We have tried tokenism, we have tried symbolism, we have tried to make people feel warm and gooey inside but ultimately as a nation, as a government and as a people we really have a responsibility to address Indigenous disadvantage and all the previous systems we have adopted have comprehensively failed.’

On the issue of exploration and mining on Aboriginal lands, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 includes provisions that will increase core negotiation periods for licences from 12 months to 24 months, while also giving the Northern Territory government the power to end negotiations if it is of the opinion that a company’s intentions in the negotiations are not genuine. It will also enable the Northern Territory to act as observer to any negotiations—previously, this was a role carried out by the Australian government. It will retain the provision that allows the traditional landowners to have the power to withhold consent for mining companies to begin exploration. In the views of the drafters of the legislation, this enables the Aboriginal people to safeguard their own interests. Those exploration proposals that are vetoed by the owners will be subject to a one-year moratorium instead of the current five-year moratorium. This will give the Indigenous landowners greater opportunity to explore more quickly renewed avenues to secure benefits for their people.

When the Northern Territory ultimately becomes a state, I think it is really important that the land rights act be repatriated to the Northern Territory. I suppose the member for Lingiari and I—who do not really agree on very much—might well agree that, if the Northern Territory is to take its place as a state within the Commonwealth of Australia, the Northern Territory ought to be treated in this area in the same way as all other Australian states.

On other proposals for economic developments, the bill includes provisions that will give Indigenous people greater control over the issues by which they are quintessentially the most affected. These include the increase to the threshold of the contracts which need ministerial approval from the current $100,000 to $1,000,000—that makes a lot of logical, sound commonsense; allowing leases to include provisions allowing future transfers; and increasing the lease term that requires ministerial approval from the current 10 years to 40 years. It really is important that issues involving mining and exploration leases, and the negotiations that are a detailed and important factor in finalising these leases, are as streamlined and as workable as possible to ensure that the Indigenous people of Australia receive the greatest benefits, yet it is also important to retain the legislative protections that ensure the integrity of the act.

Further changes proposed by the bill include allowing land councils to delegate certain decision-making permissions to regional groups and clarifying the procedures required to establish new land councils. Currently, the act rather peculiarly states that there must be a ‘substantial majority’ to be in favour. This will be changed to a 55 per cent majority. Changes in the bill also include that future funding to land councils be based on the amount of work that they do and the results that they get, rather than simply on the number of people they represent. This will help to reduce the possibility of excessive funding going to any stagnant bodies. I said earlier that if we can ensure that we have the same level of accountability in the area of Indigenous affairs then it will be so much easier for a government to get the political support of the Australian people to make the economic and social investment necessary to redress Indigenous disadvantage.

I think that most Australians have a view that much of the money spent on Indigenous affairs is simply frittered away, wasted or stolen. All of us know of the horrendous reports we have seen in the media about mismanagement in Indigenous organisations, the historic lack of accountability and the way in which many people use the assets of Indigenous organisations as though they are their own assets. What happens of course is that that leaves a vacuum for the Pauline Hansons of this world to come in. They are able to make these wide pronouncements. People are concerned about wastage of government money, whether it be wastage in the area of Indigenous affairs or wastage in the area of non-Indigenous affairs, but because there is this suspicion that could build up in the Australian community about the fact that money spent in the area of Aboriginal affairs is wasted it makes it very difficult for the government of the day, regardless of political colour, with the best intentions to get the support of the Australian people to redress the very obvious ongoing issues of Indigenous disadvantage.

The bill currently before the chamber includes provisions to ensure transparency in land council cost recovery measures as well as giving power to the Commonwealth Office of Evaluation and Audit to investigate land councils. I know that whenever an amendment is proposed to any law there is a range of views. Indigenous affairs is an area which excites a great deal of interest not only in the community but on both sides of the House. I would be prepared to admit that everyone in the House wants to see Indigenous outcomes improved, but I think it is really important to take the rose-coloured glasses off and to look at what needs to be done in a practical sense to ensure sensible, practical outcomes.

Regrettably, I suspect the Australian Labor Party is still locked into the tired, old, failed—however well-meaning—policies of the past. This government has been prepared to look beyond the square. We have been prepared in a range of areas to take innovative initiatives. In recent times there have been a number of suggestions which have gained the support of many Indigenous people. So, while the opposition might well oppose this legislation, it really ought not to denigrate the fact that this government is trying to sweep away the lack of achievement in the interests of improving Indigenous outcomes. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to assist the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory to see a greater benefit from the immense amounts of land that we do have in the Northern Territory. I do not see this bill as being an absolute panacea, but I do see it as being a very positive and important step forward. I am very pleased to be able to stand in the House today to support it and I formally commend the bill to the chamber.

See this speech in context