Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

( by leave—I would like to reflect on an important anniversary this weekend—the 20th anniversary of the Mabo decision in the High Court. The Mabo decision marked a turning point for reconciliation in Australia. The decision was a significant step forward in truly recognising the proud history of the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures on our planet. It is unquestionably an enduring stain on our history that since the First Fleet successive governments institutionalised an abject denial of the rights of Indigenous people to land and waters. Sunday, 3 June will mark a very important day in the history of Australia—20 years to the day since six High Court justices changed forever the rights of Indigenous peoples in this country by recognising native title.

As the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth, it is appropriate to pause briefly to also recognise the significance of the decision in the context of the judiciary's role in Australia's constitutional democracy. The decision has been widely recognised as a triumph for the common law, although criticised by others. And whilst there has been much commentary on the nature of the court's decision, the decision unquestionably provided a valuable point upon which to further develop recognition and respect for Indigenous Australians.

But this decision was not just the work of the court. This long journey started 10 years earlier when Eddie Koiki Mabo, Sam Passi, David Passi, Celuia Mapo Salee and James Rice began a legal claim for ownership of their lands on Mer between Australia and Papua New Guinea. The battle to claim rights over their land is a captivating story. Indeed, a drama will shortly be shown—I think in fact on Sunday—on ABC television, which details this remarkable story of the Mabo claim.

Ten years after beginning work to claim their rights, the High Court ultimately held that British possession had not eliminated their title and that 'the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands'. The perpetual myth called terra nullius that had haunted Indigenous Australians for over two hundred years was finally dispelled. The significance of this judgment should not be understated; its impact extended well beyond Indigenous land rights. Indeed, as former Prime Minister Keating recently stated, the Mabo decision was 'an opportunity to deal with the longest continuing problem Australia faced as a nation; the fundamental colonial grievance; the dispossession of the Indigenous people and the injustice inherent in that dispossession'.

In response to the decision, the Keating Labor government developed, and the parliament ultimately passed, the Native Title Act 1993. The act was developed in partnership with the Indigenous community and saw leadership from influential figures such as Lowitja O'Donoghue. The act was very much a partnership, an historic partnership. As Paul Keating highlighted last year in his Lowitja O'Donoghue Oration, the in-depth negotiations to develop the Native Title Act was the first time in the history of settled Australia that 'Indigenous people sat in full concert with the government'. The Native Title Act legislatively validated and built on the Mabo decision. Key features of the act include providing a pathway for recognising native title, validating existing titles and establishing the right to negotiate.

The decision to legislate by the Keating government was far from uncontroversial. I am sure there are many in this place can remember only too well the hate, lies and threats that dominated public debate. Some of those opposite might actually feel a little uncomfortable in recalling this today, as they remember how some of their own whipped up fear amongst the masses. We were told that native title would 'destroy our society', would 'put a brake on investment, break the economy and break up Australia' and that 'every property in Australia could be at risk'.

Thankfully, much cooler heads prevailed. Together, the Labor government and Indigenous leaders stared down those who said native title would destroy our society. As former Prime Minister Keating stated in his second reading speech on the introduction of the Native Title Bill:

…some seem to see the High Court as having just handed Australia a problem. The fact is that the High Court has handed this nation an opportunity.

…   …   …

… this bill provides for the future—it delivers justice and certainty for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, industry, and the whole community.

We should not discount the significance of Prime Minister Keating's achievement in establishing the Native Title Act. As the Chief Justice of the High Court at the time of the Mabo decision, Sir Anthony Mason, highlighted in the recent Four Corners program on Mabo, Mr Keating:

…supported the court's decision; he took the very important step of supporting the enactment of the federal Native Title Act. Without the federal Native Title Act you would not have had a system, a process for orderly handling of Indigenous land claims, and that was absolutely essential.

People might recall that the bill was not passed until after one of the longest debates in recent memory in the other place—some 51 hours and 49 minutes. It would be remiss of me not to recognise the efforts of Senator Evans in this marathon debate. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs delivered a performance that has been described as a 'political tour de force in overcoming an opposition determination to destroy the legislation by filibuster'. Twenty years down the track from the Mabo decision, it is rewarding to look how far Australia has come. The Chicken Littles were proven wrong—the sky did not fall in. And, as a nation, we are better for it. Australia can and has prospered with native title and it will continue to do so. Today, native title continues to be a lived experience for Indigenous people and has led to stronger partnerships with the broader Australian community. Native title determinations cover at least 16 per cent of the country and there have been 141 determinations that native title exists in the entire determination area or in parts of the determination area. And, very significantly, the native title claims system continues to develop and has become integrated in the broader role in supporting the development of Indigenous communities—something I know my colleague, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, has been very active in promoting.

The Native Title Act recognises and protects native title and sets up processes by which claims for native title can be determined and future activity impacting on native title may be undertaken. The act has undergone a range of reforms over the years to ensure it can meet the ongoing needs of stakeholders, particularly native title groups. Native title rights and interests can make a significant contribution to ensuring sustainable intergenerational benefits for Indigenous communities, whether through a determination of native title or through a native title agreement with governments, developers, miners, or others with an interest in the land. These opportunities can only be delivered by improving the way that native title agreements are struck and how they are managed.

The government's vision for the native title system is for faster, better outcomes, with a focus on economic development for Indigenous communities and sustainable agreement-making. We need to keep working to meet these objectives so that, 20 years hence, we can see the continuing development of the system; a system where native title rights can be appropriately leveraged by native title holders to support Indigenous communities on an intergenerational basis while maintaining the flexibility to accommodate others with an interest in land and its uses.

To touch briefly on just one aspect of the government's work to promote the speedy resolution of claims, I mention that, in the recent budget, the government announced institutional reforms to the native title system. These reforms involve claims mediation moving from the National Native Title Tribunal to the Federal Court. The initiative builds on the government's 2009 reforms, which gave the Federal Court greater control of native title mediation and saw the number of consent determinations more than double, rising from 11 in 2008-2009, the last full year before the government's reforms came into effect, to 24 in 2010-11. This reform also refocuses the resources of the tribunal on its areas of strength, enabling greater focus on crucial functions relating to future land uses affecting native title.

I am very pleased to say that next week I will be travelling with Minister Macklin to Townsville to deliver keynote addresses at the 2012 National Native Title Conference, which is commemorating the important Mabo decision. We will take this opportunity to further reflect upon the accomplishments to date, the challenges ahead for native title and the Commonwealth's vision for the native title system.

Today, I am sure all members in this place will join with me to reflect on the achievements that have been made since the courageous journey by Eddie Koiki Mabo and others in seeking, and achieving, the landmark Mabo decision 20 years ago in the High Court of Australia.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Stirling to speak for 10 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Stirling speaking in reply to the minister's statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

Question agreed to.

See this speech in context