Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the member for Calare, whose speech I listened to closely, for his observations. I say to the member that he need not worry about the strength of feeling that there is within the Labor Party about these proposals; the fact is that we will be dividing on them.

I was also encouraged by the contributions which have been made by others in this debate, notably the member for Calare, as I have pointed out, and also the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Batman, the member for Banks and of course the shadow minister. I am not at all enthusiastic, of course, about the contribution made by the member for Solomon, which I am sure comes as no surprise here.

I thought that the member for Calare showed a keen appreciation of the historical circumstances that surround the opportunity for the leasing of Aboriginal land prior to the amendments which were passed in this place previously, which amended section 19 and put in a new section 19A. His observations about the executive director under this new legislation are also apposite and something that we need to be most concerned about. I am sure once Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory understand them they will be very concerned about them. His observations summarising the concerns expressed in the Bills Digest at the conclusion of his contribution make it amply evident that, should this piece of legislation go through this place, this office be established, a township lease be signed and the responsible body be the executive director, there will be no cause for that person to have any dealings with Indigenous people—Aboriginal traditional owners—about the future of those leases once the lease is signed. That is very clear to me, as it was clear to those people who wrote the Bills Digest.

This bill will establish an Office of the Executive Director Of Township Leasing to enter into and administer township leases on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. We need to understand what that means and be very clear about what it means. The bill states:

The functions of the Executive Director are:

(a) to enter into, on behalf of the Commonwealth, leases under section 19A; and

(b) to administer leases granted to the Commonwealth under section 19A, including administering subleases and other rights and interests derived from such leases, in accordance with their terms and conditions; and

(c) any other functions that are prescribed by the regulations, being functions relating to the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Section 3AA, Approval of NT Entities, subsection 2, of the original act—in this case referring to a Northern Territory entity but no doubt in this instance it will mean this entity—states:

(2) If an NT entity is the Northern Territory, a Minister of the Northern Territory, on behalf of that entity, may:

·              (a) enter into a lease under section 19A; and

·              (b) exercise all the powers of a lessee (including granting a 27 sublease).

We need to be most concerned about this piece of legislation. We are told that this is to be an interim office until the Northern Territory government establishes its own entity, if it does. The office would hold all 99-year leases on township land, it would grant subleases in accordance with headleases and conditions under the provisions of section 19A of the principal act, and it would be funded to the tune of $15 million from the Aboriginals Benefit Account. That, of course, is adding insult to injury, as has been commented on by both the member for Calare and the member for Kingsford Smith. This legislation will create an administrative framework for the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to further his scheme of privatising Aboriginal land. Let there be no doubt about it: the essence of this is to undermine the core principles of the Aboriginal land rights act. That is epitomised in the comments made by the member for Solomon and have been the observations historically made by the minister when he has commented on collective ownership. I think they are testimony enough to where the minister is coming from.

Let me for a moment leave aside any question of fact and ideology. Under the leasing proposal the land would be held by an entity—in this case the executive director—under a headlease. The entity, as described by the parts of legislation which I have read out, would have the power to sublease the land to outside business interests and to residents, who presumably may use their leases as collateral for finance to open businesses or to build or buy their own homes, should they wish to do so. Outside interests may relinquish the lease, in which case it is my understanding that the entity has the power to transfer that interest in the land to another party or parties, although this has not been made clear in the discussion of the proposal. It is clearly not something that was addressed in any public fora that I have observed. It means that, unlike the situation operating under the principal act, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, where a landowner not only has no right to determine who gets to use his or her land, their wishes would not be taken into account about any future transfer of interests.

I am sure that there has been no discussion at any point along the way with either the people in the Tiwi Islands, the people at Galiwinku, the people in Wadeye or the people on Groote Eylandt that this is the impact of this legislation. There has been no detailed negotiation or discussion with those people about the impact of this legislation upon them and their control of their land. Once granted an interest through a sublease, of course, there is another implication—and that is that the sublease holder, or his or her employees, then gain access to Aboriginal land without any formal approval or approval process such that exists under the current permit system, but which, of course, we know the government would like to get rid of. Again, this point has not been made clear to those people who are currently contemplating the proposal for leasing. It adds significant weight to my contention that this is all about privatisation—the privatising of Aboriginal land.

I note that the Commonwealth government proposes to make free with other people’s land—in this case Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, under the various land trusts. Yet, under the terms of the Crown Lands Act 1996, as it applies to Norfolk Island, for example, land may be leased only to a natural person who is granted residential status or general entry permit status under section 8(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1980, or, under section 8(1)(b), a community organisation, which means a body corporate or an unincorporated association which is not carried on for the pecuniary profit of its members and which has as its principal purpose the provision of community service, or a form of assistance to persons living or working on Norfolk Island, including the provision of sporting or cultural facilities. The intent of that is clear: it is intended to maintain the integrity of the landholding system of Norfolk Island and to stop unwanted intervention or interference from outside and, from the Norfolk Island perspective, to maintain its cultural and environmental heritage.

Similarly, Lord Howe Island is a place of immense environmental value. In New South Wales the Lord Howe Island Act 1953 governs the issuing of leases in perpetuity for the purpose of residence. Section 21 of the act provides that the minister may lease areas of not more that two hectares of vacant crown land for the purpose of residence and that a lease may be granted only to an islander aged 18 years or over. The lease is to be a lease in perpetuity and, according to subsection 21(7), a condition of residence is to attach to the lease.

Let us now consider the Tiwi Islanders. Under the proposals in this legislation, they will not have the same protection offered to the residents of Norfolk Island or Lord Howe Island. In exchange for being denied their existing rights, they are being offered inducements such as money for services, infrastructure and facilities that other Australians regard as their right as citizens. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the minister and the Tiwi landowners at Nguiu in early May and I attended a public meeting at Nguiu on, I think, 10 May. When commenting on the memorandum of understanding, Mr Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—who has been referred to previously—said:

The Government has effectively given the Tiwi one million dollars worth of health services, a new school and some improvements to recreational areas in exchange for control over their land. Every Australian citizen has a right to appropriate housing and health services—no-one should have to trade their land for these essential services … some of the services offered address long-standing and urgent needs facing the Tiwi people—these are overdue. But they should never have been made contingent in this way.

Nor should they have. Mr Calma also said that the new arrangements strip the Tiwi people of their power to stop development that offends their cultural and environmental sensitivities in return for houses or services. That is clear in the legislation; it could not be clearer. Any potential they have to control land that is made the subject of one of these town leases will be removed. Of course, the minister has already made propositions to the people of Wadeye, Galiwinku and Groote Eylandt, and I will come to the issue of Alice Springs shortly.

I will now make a couple of observations to get rid of the spurious notion that, somehow or other, under section 19 of the land rights act it was impossible or inappropriate to lease land for commercial or housing purposes. Of course, that is just a nonsense. There is any number of examples of short-term commercial leases—something less than 99 years—including, for example, a tuckshop or a fast-food outlet, two of which exist on Galiwinku and which have leases under the section 19 provisions of the land rights act. There is absolutely no need to remove the ability of traditional owners to deal in land through land trusts and land councils and to put it in the hands of a third party who has no connection with or responsibility to those people—none whatsoever.

I have been involved in this area of public policy for nigh on 30 years and I have never heard such spurious arguments as those put in the debate on the original proposals for the leasing provisions amending section 19 in the last bill passed through this place or the proposals before us today. They suggest to me that this is all about a set of beliefs, not an understanding of what is happening on the ground or the desirability of ensuring that Aboriginal people in Australia, in this case in the Northern Territory, have the right to self-determination. That right will very clearly be taken from them as a result of this legislation. It could not be clearer.

We know how the government deals with these things. It has threatened to take $60 million from the town camp community in Alice Springs because the community is not prepared to accept the conditions placed on that funding by the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory governments. In fact, they want a set of arrangements that preserve their right to self-determination and to control the housing that is proposed to be built at the town camps. They are not opposed to the idea of leasing or people purchasing homes. However, they are opposed to losing control.

It should not be beyond the wit and wisdom of people in this place or elsewhere to come to an agreement about how that control should be exercised. Nor should it be beyond the wit and wisdom of people to sit down around the table in good faith and to say, ‘We are prepared to deal with you. We understand the terms and conditions you want to put into any arrangements we might agree upon. We will not impose arbitrary deadlines. We will provide an opportunity for proper consultation and ownership of the decision-making process.’ That is not what has happened.

What has happened is that preconditions have been placed on the negotiations at the outset and in the first instance by the Commonwealth. There should be no preconditions for these discussions, if the ultimate objective is to improve and alleviate the appalling living conditions that exist in the town camps around Alice Springs. Similarly, if the government’s real intention, through these proposals, is to provide opportunities for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to purchase houses, or to provide new infrastructure on Aboriginal land, then let us discuss that matter. Let us not have it dressed up in some ideological framework which is designed to undermine the essence of the land rights act. There is no need to. Aboriginal people are entirely reasonable, as the negotiations and discussions with the people of Wadeye would attest. What they did, when confronted with the proposal from the Commonwealth, was to go back to the Commonwealth with an alternative proposition for leasing for a lesser period. It is entirely proper for that to happen. As the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs can now attest, he came into this place proposing all sorts of funding which would be expended on Aboriginal housing at Wadeye—commented on properly and appropriately by the shadow minister—and said very clearly that what we are about is building houses. If you want to build houses, sit down and negotiate the building of houses. If you want to provide the capacity for people to purchase their homes, I am sure they would not be opposed to that idea, but do not impose artificial and nonsensical preconditions upon that set of negotiations, which is entirely what has happened in this context.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 is unnecessary—as the amendments in the first instance were unnecessary. Ultimately Aboriginal people may decide, ‘We’re going to cop this,’ and the Tiwis might decide that they are going to cop it—as is their right. If they do so, why is it that the government will not say to them, ‘Why not make the entity the Tiwi Land Trust’? Why shouldn’t the land trust, the land-holding bodies and the landowning bodies be the entities, so that the right of control remains in the hands of traditional owners? Why is it that an office is being set up over which the traditional owners will have no control and will have no impact on? I can only say that it is about developing the economic interests of people who are not Aboriginal—or, in this case, Tiwi Islanders. That concerns me greatly. We do need to provide opportunities—there is no question about that. Opportunities can be provided, but they will not be provided by governments arbitrarily imposing their view upon people in the way in which it is proposed by this government.

I go to the comments made by the member for Calare about assimilation policy. That is what this is about. We are seeing the clock wound back ostensibly to prior to the existence of the land rights act, to give a different set of landholding and land management arrangements to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory which are consistent with the ideology of this government. It is not good enough. This legislation should be opposed and will be opposed.

See this speech in context