Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009. Native title is the recognition by Australian law that some Indigenous people have rights and interests to the land that come from their traditional laws and customs. Native title is a critical matter in my 2.3 million square kilometre electorate. In addition to having vast mineral and energy resources, much of which are yet to be developed, more than 18 per cent of the people in my electorate are Indigenous. I will explain more about native title in my electorate a little later.

Let me first refer to the comments by the member for Banks. Among other things, he admitted that among the Australian population there was a great deal of ignorance about and a great deal of hesitation in their knowledge of the detail involved in native title legislation. The member for Banks has admitted that this legislation and the act is not perfect. In that regard, I agree with him wholeheartedly. I say from the outset that in principle I support this legislation. I have been, as the member for Banks mentioned, with him a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I was also a member of the joint standing committee on native title. If there is any need for me to indicate my credentials in this matter, having grown up in rural Western Australia, I have spent my whole life in association with Indigenous people.

The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 came about following the well-known decision of the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland in 1992. In that particular case, what the High Court was dealing with was primarily the issue of whether native title ought to become law and whether it was something that needed resolution at the time. The Australian people, broadly, were very much in favour of resolving that issue.

But the process of resolution of the boundaries—the delineation of land that might be covered or ruled upon by courts—in the Mabo situation was much easier, so much easier that it was almost a different world. Certainly, it was an environment in which there had been little impact by European occupation, and the association with the land on an ongoing basis by Indigenous peoples had been consistent. However, governments of the day—and subsequent governments, I confess—thought it was sufficient in 1993 to introduce the Commonwealth Native Title Act. It was broadly applied to the mainland of Australia for the resolution of issues where claimant groups were identifying themselves and laying claim to particular country. Then the Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court were expected to make determinations on these matters.

At the time of the introduction of the act, there was an all-pervading point of view that said: ‘Native title and the introduction of the act will be a panacea of all ills, the solution to all problems, almost nirvana for Indigenous people in Australia. All they will have to do is prove their association with the land on an ongoing basis according to the act and all problems will be solved.’ There was a great and ready acceptance of that belief, of that propaganda. I call it propaganda because it was nothing less than propaganda.

It was something promoted broadly by ignorant suburban populations, mainly in south-eastern Australia, who wanted their collective conscience eased by the introduction of this act so that they could sleep nights secure in the knowledge that Indigenous people who had been wronged in the past by European occupation would now have all of their problems solved. So the message was sent out by the law fraternity and those associated with it into communities that money would be forthcoming to push the cause and to find resolutions and that milk and honey would flow as a result. That was 16 years ago.

I am yet to find in my 2.3 million square kilometres a decision on native title that has created any good whatsoever. Money has flowed, compensation has flowed, royalties have flowed and go away money has flowed. All manner of cash resources have come into communities. All manner of committees and associations have been set up, with a great hierarchy of leadership, committee members et cetera. Infrastructure has been created on community as a result of the settlement of native title and determinations by the courts about land use agreements and access to country by mining companies—exploration companies in the first instance and sometimes active mining companies. But I have never seen anything good. I have not seen change to the point where Indigenous lives have been improved by determinations of native title. They have certainly not been improved by the introduction of the act in 1993.

On the other hand, what I have seen is whole cohesive families torn apart. I have seen communities commit murder as a result. I have seen the largesse of expenditure of these cash funds that I talk about create death or at least long-term ill health and huge costs to successive governments in relation to curing Aboriginal health problems created by an excess of various drugs—alcohol and other chemical drugs—and excess generally. The worst thing, I believe, has been the destruction of the harmonious community aspect of family life. You might say that I am suggesting that ignorance is bliss—I am not for a moment. But the conditions that existed pre the myth of native title were, in the majority of cases, much better than the mayhem that has been created since. Those are the circumstances that exist today.

These amendments that we are speaking of are another hope, out of goodwill, I am sure, shared across the chamber, that we will make the 16-year-old dream become a reality—we will make these amendments and once again everything will be put right. I do not believe it for a moment. I am not going to oppose these amendments, because they are a bit like throwing a handful of wheat at a shed—something just might hit. Even the discussion of this issue in the chamber today just might make people think. It just might stop aunties, cousins, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers from being at each other’s throats because somebody has been excluded from a claimant group, because some wet-behind-the-ears anthropologist has come into a community and made the determination: ‘The line will be drawn here. This group will be beneficiaries. They will be part of the native title claimant group. This group will not.’ There is as much chance of that determination being real, accurate and embracing of reality as there is of me picking up a couple of squillion dollars—it is just not going to happen. We are talking about cultural circumstances that go back thousands of years. What is your estimate—30,000 years, 60,000 years? We are talking about a culture that once upon a time was ingrained into the minds of all Indigenous people that occupied the land. That was about 200 years ago and, since then, so much has happened.

The determinations that are made today by well-meaning individuals about who will and who will not be part of a claimant group are creating mayhem in communities. I have a constant path to my electoral office door of complainants who have been left out in the cold. The stories are numerous.

See this speech in context