Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I must say that it is a pleasure to follow the member for Kennedy. This debate is about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, and I am trying to work out in my own mind where the Soviet Union fits into the debate—but it was a delight to listen to the member. Having said that, I think we have to front up to the fact that the centre of this debate is the question of consent. It is about the rights of our own Indigenous community and whether or not we treat them with respect and are willing to support their determination to work out their problems.

I think the starting point for the discussion is revisiting a government majority report of the House entitled Unlocking the future: the report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. To understand the debate, you only have to go to the very first recommendation of the report. That report simply says that, if we are going to have a look at the future of this act of parliament, we have to start thinking about the requirement to consult the traditional Aboriginal owners and their requirement to give consent to changes with respect to the very operation of the bill before the House this evening. I think that is the benchmark for our not only being able to work with traditional owners and the Indigenous community generally to achieve a proper assessment of land rights legislation but also making sure that we give them the capacity to pursue and put in place not only self-determination but also a major improvement in the social indicators that are of concern to the great majority of Australians—issues going to access to housing, the level of education attainment and problems with health and employment, just to name a few.

Interestingly, the history of the act will show that it provided for the immediate transfer to Aboriginal people by freehold title of 258,000 square kilometres of land, which was formerly government reserve—land set aside for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It also correctly provided for the processing of land claims, which is one of the issues that I want to address this evening, based on traditional ownership with the claims lodged by land councils to an Aboriginal land commissioner. About 44 per cent of Northern Territory land has been granted as Aboriginal land under the existing act, with a further 10 per cent subject to claim.

The legislation to date has provided for traditional owners in certain circumstances to refuse consent to mining and other developments on their land. That is not because they are against development; it is about trying to make sure that there is a balance between development and traditional rights of our Indigenous community. It has also provided for negotiations with developers and the payment of royalties to the Aboriginal beneficiaries, which is about the distribution of financial assistance to Aboriginal communities and the funding of land councils so that they meet their expenses in looking after the Indigenous community and properly representing them, with 30 per cent of those royalties being for the benefit of incorporated Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory. That is the background of the legislation before the House this evening. Importantly, it is part of our trying to front up to the errors of our ways in days gone by.

The problem is that this bill seeks to undermine the principles laid out in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. The intent of this legislation is to actually diminish the principle of self-determination. I personally believe that is plain wrong. Not only is that my view but it is also the view of the opposition, as reflected in a second reading amendment moved by the member for Lingiari, Mr Warren Snowdon, who knows better than anyone in this House the challenges confronting the Indigenous community. Unlike anyone else in this House, he spent the last week consulting different communities in the Northern Territory about their view on the draft legislation and how the opposition should react to it so as to ensure their voice is heard in this debate. Unfortunately, the member for Solomon, who also represents a very small part of the Northern Territory, has not taken the opportunity to consult the Indigenous community and does not properly articulate their views in this debate.

As shadow minister for resources, there are some aspects of the bill that the opposition very much supports and these provisions have the support of the Indigenous community. The Indigenous community of the Northern Territory wants investment. It wants to develop resources and wants to ensure that in the development of those resources it is consulted with a view to maximising the return not just in the form of royalties to the Indigenous community but, more importantly, in social and economic development. The Indigenous community more than anyone wants economic development in the Northern Territory. It wants resource development and tourism. That is about creating opportunities locally for training, schooling, employment and enlarging the economic cake available to the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory.

I think it is about time that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs understood that he is wrong. The Indigenous community is not anti economic development. It is more pro economic development than the minister himself. It is a question of how you do it. The best way to achieve development in Australia is by sitting down and negotiating with people and taking them with you. That is the intent of the act, as it currently stands. But, unfortunately, it is not the intent of some of the changes embodied in the bill before the House because they actually diminish the capacity for land councils in the Northern Territory to properly represent and lobby on behalf of the Indigenous community.

With respect to the issue of resources, following consultation over a long period, the changes embodied in the bill have the support of the Indigenous community and appropriately so. That is why the opposition also supports them because they are aimed at trying to get a decent outcome—trying to facilitate development over a shorter period and trying to shorten the negotiating period. So, in the interests of all groups, it is proposed that the negotiations covering mining access to Aboriginal lands be streamlined. That has arisen after a period of consultation. It is about consent. It includes the ability of the Northern Territory government to establish deadlines for negotiations after an appropriate period in order to encourage quicker agreements. It is about preventing protracted negotiations. It sets down a core negotiating period of approximately 30 months to provide a realistic time frame for negotiations on exploration and mining developments. We have achieved it in the past and we can do it better in the future. If you have any doubts about that, just look at the success of the negotiating process involving the  upgrade and extension of the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line. That was done in consultation with and support of the Indigenous community. People put the effort into actually achieving an outcome. The Northern Territory will be able to set more realistic deadlines for people to work towards and that is what it is about—people working towards realistic outcomes so that they all know that if they achieve the necessary outcome and negotiations, everyone benefits.

It also sends a message to some in the mining sector that we will no longer cop warehousing of areas. This bill aims to prevent the warehousing of areas of Aboriginal land where there is no intention by a mining company to explore in the short to medium term. That is not just about the Indigenous community’s best interests; it is about the best interests of all Australians. No mining company should be able to warehouse land without properly considering exploration and development. It puts the onus on these mining companies to pursue the exploration opportunities and decide whether they are actually going to mine. It is not a challenge to mining companies with a good reputation that supports them; it is about the rogues in the industry who are not prepared to make the necessary decisions about exploration and development. It also reinforces the importance of local management by delegating decisions to the Northern Territory government. It will facilitate faster and more responsive processes in development for the resources sector. It will also facilitate minerals development in the Northern Territory.

The problems relating to negotiations will diminish, but it also raises another serious question about how you conduct these negotiations. For an extended period now the Minerals Council of Australia has criticised the Howard government for not properly resourcing representative native title bodies to conduct these negotiations on an equal footing. These negotiations are not cheap. They extend over a long period and you need to consult anthropologists and legal representatives to ensure that Indigenous communities are properly represented.

I remind the House that the Howard government is part of the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It has to get serious about properly resourcing and funding the Indigenous community’s representatives. Negotiations with mining companies have to be on an equal footing, because mining companies get a benefit as a result of successful negotiations. Think about what the Indigenous community wants out of resource development. They are saying, ‘We are pro resource development, but we want to be able to negotiate what is also of interest to us.’ And it is bigger than the issue of royalties. It is not just about money; it goes to issues such as social outcomes, health and education and how you lock in training. For example, how do we extend beyond Comalco in Queensland and the fact that this company has given an undertaking that any Indigenous kid who finishes year 10 is guaranteed a job at Comalco in Weipa?

Those are the types of models that we want to extend to the Northern Territory. But the Indigenous community has to be resourced to facilitate those outcomes, because it is about negotiating processes. The Indigenous community is prepared to manage and facilitate these processes but let’s resource it. It is not just about the law of the land, Mr Howard; it is also about avoiding lopsided negotiations. Lopsided negotiations are not good for industry, they are not good for the Indigenous community and they are not good for Australia at large. Lopsided negotiations, be they in the workplace or in the Northern Territory with the Indigenous community, where they are not conducted on an equal footing, leave a bitter taste in the minds of the participants in those negotiations.

That is not about good economic development in Australia. This is a very important bill, but I point out to the House and, importantly, to Australians listening to this debate that the Howard government is not prepared to extend the debate but is guillotining it at 8.30 this evening to limit the number of speakers. I think that is a disgrace. If it succeeds in gaining proper consent and proper consideration of negotiations, this bill will create long-term economic opportunities for Australia. Why, therefore, should the Howard government limit the opportunity for members to make a contribution to what is a very important debate for the future of Australia?

Having dealt with some of the positive aspects of the bill, I want to remind the House that there are some negatives. I have serious concerns about a range of issues raised by the member for Lingiari and reflected in his second reading amendment, which I absolutely support. Let us go to the issue of land councils. Historically, they have had guaranteed funding so they can do their job. The government now suggests that guaranteed funding should be replaced by ministerial discretion. I just scratch my head. That is about Big Brother from Canberra again saying: ‘If you do what you’re told when you’re told, you might get funding.’ That is not about cooperative negotiations and encouraging the Indigenous communities; it is about waving the big stick—‘Do what you’re told when you’re told or we’re going to cut out your funding.’ It is about politicisation; it is not about a long-term commitment to economic development and the improvement of the lot of Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.

It is also about taking away the independence of the councils. If you are prepared to express opposition to a bill such as this, which is premised on consent, then it is stored in the back of the minister’s mind and you will pay the price over time because you dared to question the decision-making process of government. I am totally opposed to that approach to government, which should be about a strong democracy and people being able to express whether or not they support an aspect of proposed legislation. It is wrong to give the appropriations to the minister so he can decide who the favoured sons and daughters in the Indigenous community will be if they do what the Howard government tells them. Funding is essential for the activities of the Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory and their capacity to facilitate negotiations with the resources sector and a whole variety of other sectors, including the tourism sector, which I have responsibility for as shadow minister.

Then there is the issue of 99-year leasing. Where else in Australia would you get a bill which says that not only is an Indigenous community required to accept 99-year leasing but Big Brother in Canberra is going to determine capping at five per cent per annum of the approved capital value of the land for rental purposes? That is not about proper market considerations. Let the market play out. If there is going to be leasing for a 99-year period, then let the market determine the appropriate rent. Why should politicians interfere with the operation of the market? Let’s have proper economic development. Make the investment and take the market risk. But here we are told that, no matter what the economic potential of development is on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, the maximum rate will be capped at five per cent. Why would the Aboriginal community bother to cooperate? There are a whole host of economic opportunities in the Northern Territory which will return a bigger rent than five per cent, but this government says you will only be entitled to five per cent.

Then there is the issue of more land councils to be set up to suit the needs of the government. There is a suggestion that some of the amendments embodied in this bill might, in fact, breach the Racial Discrimination Act. It is for the Indigenous community to consider their legal options. I encourage them: while the rule of law applies in Australia, explore your available options.

Unfortunately, time is limited this evening. Members are not really in a position to use all of the time normally available to members of parliament because of the guillotine of the debate. In conclusion, I say that there are aspects of this bill that, as the shadow minister for resources, I totally support. They are about facilitating economic development in the Northern Territory and, in doing so, bringing long-term benefit to Australia and, perhaps more importantly, bringing long-term economic and social improvements to the lot of the Indigenous community.

Other aspects of the bill are crude, un-Australian and unacceptable. I urge members of the House to support the second reading amendment. I also urge those members on the other side of the House who supposedly have a conscience—they are talking about the rights of refugees at the moment—to think about the rights of the traditional owners of Australian land. Think about the Indigenous community. If you are prepared to talk about crossing the floor on the rights of refugees, think about crossing the floor on the rights of our own Indigenous people. Support the right to decent economic development based on consent of the Aboriginal people—home-grown Australians who want to determine their own future. It is a challenge for members with a so-called conscience to stand up on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. I commend the second reading amendment to the House. I support those aspects of the bill relating to resource development in the Northern Territory, but I indicate my total opposition to the other aspects of the bill that members of the opposition have touched on in this important debate.

See this speech in context