Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contributions that have been made thus far to the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015 by the shadow spokesperson and by the member for Berowra. I appreciate the member for Berowra's experience in this place and his role, as he described, in those years after the Whitlam government and as an observer of matters to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, in particular, in this instance, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I do appreciate his observations; however, I think some of them may be little bit misguided—not misguided because of any fault of his but because I think there may be a lack of understanding about how the act operates—and I will come to that in a moment.

It is clear as we speak today that, under section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, it is possible to have, and people do have, subleases of Aboriginal freehold land to carry out all manner of activities. This has been available since 1976, and there is a plethora of economic activity happening on Aboriginal communities as we speak using this section 19 lease. It is possible, and it has been possible since 1976, under section 19 of the land rights act, for individuals to seek a lease for the purpose of building their own home. Sadly, from one perspective, that has not happened. There have not been a large number of people seeking to lease land for the purpose of building their own homes. There are township leases in Nguiu. Under those township leases to the Commonwealth, there have been I think three or four, maybe five, individual homeowners. But the number of people with homeownership or seeking homeownership is small. It is largely because of the economic environment in which people live—and their aspirations are, frankly, a little different from yours or mine.

I think it is also fair to observe—I observe this as someone who comes from a post World War II family—that it was commonplace, and indeed it was the thing, for people to live in rented accommodation all their lives. My parents did. So it is not unusual to expect that people who currently live in rented, government provided accommodation should be happy to maintain the relationship with the government whilst they have access to accommodation. My parents did this, and indeed I can point you to suburbs in Canberra today where it has been the case that people of my parents' generation are still renters.

I know that we say that all Australians should aspire to homeownership. Frankly, it is moving out of the reach of many, so I would not be too hung up on that. What I do want to emphasise is the importance of acknowledging that people can use this act as it was meant to be used and designed to be used—for leasing land for the purposes of economic development and economic activity. Nevertheless, this piece of legislation—I was never a great fan of the Office of Township Leasing—provides the capacity for subleases from the Office of Township Leasing to go to an individual corporation, and that is a good idea, because it means Aboriginal owners of land can form the corporations which then manage the subleases. That is a very positive thing to do and it leaves the Office of Township Leasing where it should be—in Canberra—having very little to do with what goes on. Obviously, the arrangement for the Aboriginals Benefit Account to pay the costs associated with new leasing arrangements are important, and of course there are two new parcels of land, which I will refer to later, under the legislation. These further amendments which the government has made will bring the delegation of land council functions and powers in the land rights act in line with standard practice in delegation arrangements and improve the process for delegations.

It is important to understand that the reason this has not happened before is government overreach. The objective of amending this legislation to effectively mean that the minister could take away the delegated powers of the land council and provide them to a corporation that was then not responsible was ludicrous. No wonder it was opposed by Aboriginal community organisations and Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory. I might point out for the sake of those who are listening—not that there are that many, because proceedings are not being broadcast—that all of the land rights acts in the Northern Territory affect my electorate and my electorate alone. The Tiwi Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council all operate solely within my electorate. It is important to understand that, except for the provision of some land in Darwin—although, under the land rights act, the land on the Cox Peninsula is part of my electorate; it is not part of the electorate of Solomon—I have had a relationship with these land councils since prior to being elected to parliament. Indeed, I worked as policy officer for the Central Land Council immediately prior to being a candidate and being elected to this parliament. So I understand and appreciate the importance of land councils and land rights in the Northern Territory.

For those who want to reflect upon our history in this regard—and thank you to the Fraser government following the Whitlam government drafting the legislation—it is without doubt the singular most important change to Aboriginal affairs in this country in the second half of last century. There is no question of that. It is the only piece of Commonwealth legislation that has given statutory recognition to land rights, and that was much prior to native title. For that, those governments, with so much foresight, need to be applauded. The land councils have carried out their roles diligently, with a great deal of pressure at times from external organisations—mining companies, pastoralists and others over the years. Thankfully, those attitudes have all changed and the relationships that exist between mining companies, other developers, the pastoral industry and land councils in the Northern Territory are now very positive. I could not say the same for late 1970s and early 1980s, when there was a war of attrition.

In 1985 Uluru was handed back to the traditional owners as a result of a very insightful piece of work by the then ministers responsible—Clyde Holding as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Barry Cohen as Minister for the Environment. The traditional owners, the Pitjantjatjara, Anangu, Yankunytjatjara people from that region, but principally the Pitjantjatjara and the Yankunytjatjara people, failed in their land claim bid for this area of land. The Commonwealth took the initiative and said, 'Well, how about we create a national park; we give you the land; you lease it back to us for the purposes of the interests of all Australians; and you will get a direct benefit as a result.' The township, which under this legislation will be excised out of the park for the purposes of administration, was part of the national park. That has been an issue since the enactment of the legislation, but, most importantly, since the transfer of title way back in 1985.

I was present at the handover, just as I was present recently at the 30th anniversary celebration. I spoke at that celebration—forgive me, because I am going to speak in Pitjantjatjara.

Kulila Anangu tjuta Visitor tjuta Ngayuku malpa tjuta Ngayulu pukulpa mulapa pitjangu kuwari. Itiri, October 1985, nyiri pulka ngarangu, Uluruku, Kata Tjutaku ka uwankara pukularingu. Kuwari, mganana piruku uwankara tjunguringanyi puli wiruku. Nganana pulkara kuliningi mantaku, munu tjukurpaku munu waltja wiyaringkuntja kulu. Nganana pukulpa mulapa ka ngayulu alatji kulini. Puli pulka, puli wiru panya—ngaranyitu, ngaranyitu.

Nyawa! Puli pulka ngarinyi, titutjara alitjitu.

Nyurampa—Uwankaraaku Palya.

I was saying that I was present in 1985, I was happy to be there, I was happy to be at the recent celebration and how important this place was for Anangu people, for Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara traditional owners. I said at the end, because I remember this day vividly, when the land was handed over and the lease was handed back, there was a big sign. There was opposition from the Northern Territory government, which did not want this to happen. Yami Lester, who was a principal involved at the time, got up the next day and said, 'Look, it has not been taken away—it is still here.' What I said here was, 'Look, look, it is still here. And we are happy that it is still there.'

It is important that we acknowledge these past historical events and understand their importance to Australia. I note the contribution by the member for Berowra, and he is absolutely correct about the importance of us working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in this case Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, to ensure that they maintain control of their lands and develop it in the way which suits their priorities—not necessarily ours. What is hard from many of us to understand is the cultural importance that people attach to their country—their attachment to it is for law reasons, for traditional affiliations to that country and for the priority that culture has. It is a priority that does not exist for us. Let's be very clear about that. When Aboriginal people talk about country, they talk about it differently. Their concept of ownership is very different from the one which we have—one that is based on a statutory title. Theirs has been since time immemorial—no written document but a body of law nevertheless. People have understood what that law has meant and what it means in terms of succession—what happens when someone passes away; who has the obligations the ceremony; who owns the stories for that piece of land; and how they connect to other pieces of land. These are of crucial importance.

Even today we have representatives from Watarrka—Kings Canyon National Park, which is in the Central Land Council region, south of Alice Springs—in Canberra trying to stop gas exploration in the national park, because it happens to be crown land. The miners say, 'Yes, but some people want it.' The fact is the traditional owners are opposed to it and they are opposed to it because of the sacredness of that country. Many Australians, sadly, are yet to wake up to what that really means. It is not some blithe term or some 'Just hear me out, this is my sacred country', they have to understand the depth of that statement and what it means. Sadly, too many do not.

I regard myself as being very fortunate in life—very fortunate in having the opportunity to live and work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples around the Northern Territory and indeed across Australia. I hope I have learnt something, I hope I have acknowledged the importance of their country and I hope I have helped others to appreciate how we should properly deal with them as traditional owners of this land of ours.

We are very fortunate to be able to be in this place, looking at this piece of legislation and acknowledging that as a result of this legislation there will be two new parcels of land which have been scheduled under the land rights act. These two parcels are important to those Aboriginal people and they are both places that I know. One is in the area of the Wickham River and the Simpson Desert; it is schedule 1 under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The other one is Uleperte, a small area to the east of Ltyente Purte or Santa Teresa. The Land Commissioner made no finding in the original land claim on the identity of the traditional ownership, but recommended that the area be scheduled under the act. The Wickham River land is in the Victoria River region, to the north-west of Kalkaringi and south and a little west of Timber Creek. That is very important, because Kalkaringi is, of course, the home of that great man, Vincent Lingiari. He led that walk off so many years ago and changed the psyche of Australians towards Aboriginal people and their land. I thank the government for presenting this legislation and I assure it that there is bipartisan support for it.

See this speech in context