Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I join with others in regretting the fact that the time available for all of us to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 has been cut so short. I will not waste any of my limited time railing against that—I will allow people to make judgments for themselves. One of the things that strikes me about this bill is that it illustrates an emerging feature of the Howard government: the Howard government hates agreement on issues that it might be able to exploit as wedge issues. This is an example, and a very sad example, because we have contained within this bill a significant amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act supported by the government, the opposition, the Northern Territory government, the mining industry and the traditional owners and their representatives on the land councils on matters relating to mining and exploration.

It would have been a very significant positive achievement if we could have come into this parliament and made an amendment to the Native Title Act that would have been a significant plus for economic development with unanimous support in the parliament—I cannot speak for the Independents but, from the sound of their remarks, with the unanimous or at least the overwhelming support of the parliament—and with the support of the traditional owners, the mining industry and the Northern Territory government.

That could have been achieved. Everybody knew it could have been achieved. It was clear and known but it was a totally unacceptable outcome to the Howard government because it was good for Indigenous people and it was good for the mining industry but there was not a vote in it. It did not split the community. There was no division from which a government could gain political advantage. Where there is agreement on areas that are potentially wedge issues, this government insists upon driving in the wedge, achieving the political purpose by winning some section of that community whose votes it might not otherwise get, even if it means that those matters which could have been dealt with by agreement and consensus are torn apart.

We of course saw that illustrated with regard to the ACT civil unions legislation recently, where Laurie Oakes in last week’s Bulletin blew the whistle and made it absolutely clear that the Attorney-General and probably others in the government had in place a process that probably—and in my view, looking at it from an ACT end, almost certainly—could have led to agreement. But the Prime Minister scuttled the arrangement and made sure that the detailed proposals that could have led to an agreement were never sent to the ACT government so the agreement could never be reached and the wedge could be inserted.

That is why the first part of the second reading amendment about ‘welcoming the measures contained in the bill, including the mining and exploration provisions’ is so important. They could have been major unifying features, bringing together all sections concerned about economic development on Aboriginal land in a very positive way, but it was not good enough. We could not have discussion, negotiation or consensus because major changes have been made to the rights of traditional owners and their representatives on the land council without discussion, without negotiation, without listening and without an attempt at reaching consensus—in fact, with a deliberate attempt not to achieve consensus. No other landowners in this country would be treated this way. Let us remember that when we say ‘landowners’ the people we are talking about—the traditional owners affected by the Native Title Act—are people who have won their title. It has been determined that the title to this land is theirs; yet, without even talking to them, we pass a law to change the way it can be dealt with. No other Australian would be dealt with in this way, yet the government does not even blush. It charges headlong down this path in a manner which it has been warned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner risks breaching the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and is likely to have us in court.

What will happen? The Howard government will say the people going to court are being divisive. Shock! They are holding up development! But they know that this is a deliberate attempt at creating that division and at undermining the bodies that have the capacity effectively to represent and negotiate on behalf of the traditional owners. And it is not as though that is a secret. I was the Deputy Chair of the then Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which reported on the operation of native title representative bodies. It reported to this parliament this year that, of all the mainland native title representative bodies, the two that were most effective were the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council. In the words of the evidence presented by the Indigenous Land Corporation in talking about the difficulties it has dealing with these bodies, they were ‘performing at the better end of the spectrum’. They are two of the three—the third being the Torres Strait Regional Authority, which is not relevant to this debate—that are the most effective and the best to deal with.

So what do we do here? We say: ‘We’ll undermine them. We will undermine them financially, and we will undermine them structurally. We will create that proliferation of small bodies which every bit of previous evidence has said fails.’ Every bit of previous evidence says that, if you split up the big bodies, require them to delegate here and allow smaller split-off councils to be created there, it is less efficient. Everybody who has looked at it has found that, and it is not surprising; but every bit of evidence points to that. The government’s own majority on this committee found that—properly, on the basis of evidence put before it. But the government ignored them and, in fact, did the exact opposite.

We have letters from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory expressing widespread concern about elements of this legislation, and the government does not respond. It just charges on, when we know it could have had agreement about mining and exploration provisions from all the major participants, including the Northern Territory government. We could have had that bill through and it could have been a very significant positive, enhancing the debate about Indigenous economic development because we can see a way on which agreement can be taken going forward. But that is much too harmonious! There is no division in that. There is no vote in that. There is no split in that.

Let me come back to the point that no other landowner in Australia would be treated like this. I am here as a representative of the Australian Capital Territory, where everybody’s land is leasehold land. Can you imagine what would happen if we brought into this parliament a bill that sought to limit the capacity, the rent, which leaseholders in the ACT could have on their land? We will legislate a cap. These are people who lease Commonwealth land here in the ACT. Perhaps we should have a bill to say that there is a cap on how much return they can get. All my constituents would properly be outraged, and you would not dare do it to them.

See this speech in context