Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

except to say—if you insist—that part 1 talks about what the bill's in relation to; part 2 is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund and a number of issues to do with that; part 3 is the Indigenous Land Corporation Funding Special Account; part 4 is investment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund; part 5 is the reporting obligations, which are very important of course; and part 6 is the miscellaneous bits and pieces to the bill.

I want to begin, particularly when we are talking about these issues, by recognising country and paying our respects appropriately. I also want to pick up something that the member for Lingiari mentioned in relation to another piece of legislation, which this is connected to, when it was last debated in this parliament. It is in relation to the social justice package which was the third part of the Mabo High Court decision. I was personally involved in the consultations and the development of that social justice package under the leadership of Paul Keating. And the member for Lingiari is absolutely right: had there not been a change of government, we would not be seeing some of the social disadvantage and dislocation experienced by First Nations communities that we are still seeing today. One of the great tragedies in the last 20 years in the Indigenous affairs space is the lack of implementation of that social justice package. I think if people pulled out that social justice package today and had a look at it, it would be as relevant today as it was at the time of its development.

We need to remind ourselves that on 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia delivered the Mabo judgement overturning the long-held assumption of Australia's settlement. Whether it was settlement is contested. Of course, it was taught to us at school as settlement. From an Aboriginal perspective, it was nothing of the sort. The land belonged to no-one. In recognising the continuing title of First Nations people to land. I think it's really significant that we pause and remind ourselves about 3 June 1992. It was one of those moments in our nation's history that defined us. I remember absolutely where I was and what I was doing. I was listening to the radio, driving down City Road towards Sydney city, when I heard the Mabo decision saying terra nullius had been overturned. To me, as a First Nations woman, that was a moment when tears sprang to our eyes because for 200 years in this country we had the idea that First Nations people didn't exist—because the way in which this land was usurped, of course, was using the doctrine of terra nullius.

Apart from the many things that have been highlighted already by both speakers on this side of the House, we must remind ourselves that the notion of terra nullius was overturned in the Mabo judgement. The judgement recognised in Australian common law that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' traditional title to land, native title, had survived the British settlement of the continent. Once again, we contest that notion of settlement—I certainly do. It also found that native title had been extinguished by many of the titles granted to other Australians by successive Australian governments. And that was also absolutely crucial. I know this incredibly well. Despite Rob Borbidge and Tim Fischer's disgusting campaign saying backyards were under threat and your Hills hoist was going to go, the truth of that decision was that native title only existed if all other title had been extinguished. That's a very important point to make in this debate as well.

As I said, that decision also found that native title had been extinguished by many other titles granted to other Australians by successive Australian governments. Shortly thereafter, the federal government, led by Prime Minister Keating, sought to codify native title in legislation through a process of negotiation with Indigenous leaders. We remember that time very, very well. Many of us in this debate were part of that history—certainly the member for Hasluck, the member for Lingiari and me. The first part of the settlement was the Native Title Act 1993, legislated in December 1993. The Native Title Act codified and defined native title and established a process for its negotiation—where there had been, as I have said, no extinguishment.

The land fund, now officially known as the land account, was the second part of that settlement and, as the member for Lingiari explained, the third part was supposed to be the social justice package. At the time, the government and Indigenous leaders were conscious that many Indigenous Australians had seen their traditional country overlaid by land titles by other Australians. It was a magnificent time in our history. There was the Cape York land agreement and many other things that I think would be very difficult to achieve in today's climate.

The land account provides a mechanism for some compensation for dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples since 1788. The land account was established with legislated appropriations over 10 years to build a capital base, after which the account's own income would support the operations of a new statutory authority, created at the same time as the land account, the Indigenous Land Corporation—not too different to the philosophical background of the establishment of the New South Wales Land Rights Act and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

Since that time, the ILC has used the land account to purchase property for the use and enjoyment of Indigenous Australians whose native title has been extinguished. After 20 years, the ILC began to initiate a review into its functions. I think one of the shining examples in the city that I live in of the ILC's success in this is the purchase of the property in Redfern, the National Centre of Indigenous Excellence, which is something that all Australians can be absolutely proud of. It is a shining example of just how important this fund is.

From early July to the beginning of September 2017, the ILC undertook a series of consultations to gain community feedback on legislative changes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005—firstly, the financial sustainability of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land account and, secondly, the extension of the ILC's remit to include fresh and saltwater based activities—and, culturally, that is extremely important. There were 16 consultations, with 11 undertaken in locations around Australia, involving more than 75 First Nations organisations. So it was a very comprehensive consultation—and, appropriately, right across this country.

According to the report produced, 75 per cent of the consultation sessions provided consensus support for both areas of proposed reform. That's quite fantastic. More than 85 per cent of the sessions provided consensus support to the reform of management and government arrangements of the land account. Unanimous support for reform to the investment mandate of the land account was expressed in the written submissions that dealt with this issue. Of the 17 submissions that addressed both issues, 77 per cent gave support to both, with only eight per cent indicating they did not support the reform relating to water. The reason that we are seeing in this House right now support for these initiatives is that those consultations provided the basis for consensus.

In terms of the legislation, on 28 March 2018, the government introduced two substantive pieces of legislation and one piece of consequential legislation to alter the functions and governance of the ILC and the ILA. The first bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to give the ILC functions in relation to water-related rights. I cannot underscore just how important it is that water-related rights are included in this. We know that, in Aboriginal dreaming stories and in Aboriginal culture, the issue of water, both freshwater and saltwater, absolutely underpin the culture, the ownership and the occupation of lands and waters. Many of our stories originate in waters, and those rights to land are not extinguished at the shore line.

These additional functions to be consistent with the ILC's functions in relation to land include: the acquisition of water related rights and divestment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations; the provision of assistance grants loans and loan guarantees to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander corporations to acquire water based rights, which is also incredibly significant; the carrying on of management activities in relation to Indigenous waters; and the provision of assistance grants loans or loan guarantees for the purpose of carrying on management activities in relation to Indigenous waters.

I might just, for the edification of the House, explain a little bit. Among the many ways in which Aboriginal people describe ourselves, we are either a saltwater or a freshwater person. I and, I think, Ken are freshwater.

See this speech in context