Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the requested amendments be made.

The Northern Territory government and the land councils have put the view that the rental cap on the township leases will impede the implementation of the Township Leasing Scheme. What they have suggested to me, and I have taken their advice, is that the five per cent cap that the government has in the legislation, which we now seek to remove, would potentially send the wrong message to some traditional owners that five per cent was an expectation or, in some cases—I might say unlikely—that more than five per cent of the value of the land may be warranted and that this arbitrary figure, whilst it had been proposed earlier, should be removed. Following consideration of these issues, the government has agreed to remove the rental cap. We have listened to the stakeholders and will ensure this happens.

I also announced this decision in the House when we debated the bill back in June, so it is no surprise to members today or to those who are particularly interested in this bill. The requested amendments are part of a series of amendments agreed to by the Senate to remove the rental cap. The amendments also remove the prohibition on payments other than rent and make it clear that all payments must be made to the traditional owners. I table the amendments.

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

I thank the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Yes, the minister did acknowledge when he introduced the bill into this place that after a discussion with people he had agreed to remove this cap. We welcome that concession, notwithstanding the fact that we think the whole regime for leasing is flawed and inappropriate under the current circumstances and that there are better options. We also believe that the cap as it was initially proposed was potentially anticompetitive and possibly racially discriminatory. I am not sure what advice you received on that.

I also welcome the removal of the restriction that prevented traditional owners from negotiating pecuniary benefits other than rent which, as I understand it, will be the impact of the amendment to remove subsections 19, 6 and 7 and replace them with the new subsection. We believe that that is an appropriate course to follow in the circumstances where the government is determined to pursue these leasing arrangements. The model that is proposed is seriously flawed. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were made here previously and in the Senate, but I would like to ask what the purpose was for the proposed change to section 64(4) to omit ‘rent’ and to substitute ‘amounts’. The second item on the schedule for amendment is to omit the word ‘rent’ and to substitute ‘amounts’ for payments out of 64(4).

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just other than cash.

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

That is not what this says.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the section?

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

Section 64(4).

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘Rent’ is obviously a periodical payment. This allows for lump sums up-front and any number of variations which would meet the needs of both parties.

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

I thank the minister for the information he has given us. I do not believe that this is an appropriate use of 64(4) moneys in any event. The 64(4) moneys, as they were originally envisaged, are for the benefit and use of Indigenous people and arise out of proposals under royalty equivalents which are received by the Commonwealth and paid into the trust account under 64A. The minister has the discretion to direct from time to time the transfer of amounts of money he specifies from the trust account to a consolidated revenue fund. Then there are a series of references as to how the money is to be made available. My concern is that what we are now doing under the regime which the government has proposed, indeed passed in this chamber and sought to amend in the Senate, is to impose a regime which effectively means that the way in which the government’s proposed leasing arrangements will operate may well rely on payments made out of this account at the direction of the minister. It is worthwhile to point out what 64(4A) says:

There must be debited from the Account and paid by the Commonwealth such other amounts as the Minister directs to be paid in relation to:

(a)

the acquiring of leases by, or the administering of leases granted or transferred to, approved entities under section 19A ...

I am concerned that this should be the case. It seems to me that we have Aboriginal people who are effectively the lessor having a benefit which they have accrued being paid out of their account for the purpose of a lease that is from them, which seems to me to be a very bizarre notion.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the concern. Maybe it arises partially, at least, from a misunderstanding. The Aboriginal Benefit Account is intended to benefit, as you do appreciate, all Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is money out of consolidated revenue. It is not just the revenue that the federal government receives in the form of royalties from uranium. It is also the equivalent to the royalties that the Northern Territory government receives from mining in the Northern Territory. It is that equivalent amount as well that goes into the Aboriginal Benefit Account, so the money is there for the benefit of all Northern Territory people. The equivalent amount plus the royalties that the federal government receives for uranium are placed into the ABA. That money is then to be used for the benefit of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.

Apart from those ABA moneys going to the areas affected by mining, and to the land councils for their administrative costs, most of the remainder of the ABA is available for the benefit of Northern Territorian Aboriginals under subsection 64(4) of the ALRA. New subsection 64(4A) will allow the minister to make payments to the Northern Territory for acquiring or administering headleases.

To put that all into context, it means that not even a small proportion of the royalties or the equivalent royalties that the Northern Territory government receives for the benefit of all Territorians is biting into the money that the federal government receives. It is of course going to the administration and the facilitation of these headleases. The money goes back to the traditional owners. We believe overwhelmingly that the lease-back situation will advantage Indigenous people in those localities in a very major way. I hope that that, along with the other points, helps to clarify where the ABA money comes from and the percentage that will be distributed or that is likely to be distributed through here.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the minister says that this is a period for us to reflect upon the fact that this act is about Indigenous people. In summing up, because we are virtually at the end of a process, I am pleased that he has taken on board the request from the land councils and the Northern Territory government about capping and that that change was made.

It seems to me that there has been a lot of disappointment. When I was on a parliamentary committee some years ago, we looked at the land rights act. It was the unanimous recommendation back then that there be no amendments to the act without traditional owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and, as a group, giving their consent.

I understand that the government has undertaken to talk to traditional owners after this bill is passed. It seems to me that the requests for Senate amendments that we are now discussing are a slight improvement on what was put up in the first instance. I am sure that there are other improvements that need to be looked at on behalf of Aboriginal people in relation to this land rights act, and we should not apologise for that. This was a landmark act in its day. It was introduced by the Fraser government, although it was not as good as the draft put in by the Whitlam government.

I note in the report of the Senate committee that it had received a number of submissions, including from land councils, the Law Society, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. They were all united in their criticism of the bill and had argued that it should not be proceeded with until agreement was reached with stakeholders, particularly the traditional landowners. That is not happening. We are going through with the government’s proposals in relation to the land rights act.

These requests for amendments are slight improvements on the wording and the capping situation, which the land councils specifically asked to be addressed. But what concerns me is that I see a lot of amendments that are not aimed at improving the lot of Aboriginal people; they are actually aimed at making it harder for Aboriginal people. I am not one—and the member for Lingiari is also not one—who says that the land rights act should not be improved and changed. When I was shadow minister, I was approached on a number of occasions by the land councils, and they said to me, ‘We think this can be improved not only for our benefit but also for the benefit of the mining community.’ They want to see the benefits on their land flowing to their communities as well as to the mining community. In many instances, it is the only hope they have.

I take on board that, in terms of these amendments, the minister and the government have responded in one instance to the capping at the request of the Northern Territory government. I think that is important. I also think it is important that what the government and the minister do not respond to is the uninformed element out there in the community, because that is not going to satisfy the long-term interests of the community or the traditional owners. I want to see us take a path whereby both sides of politics can put the partisanship to one side and look at some long-term solutions. That involves engaging the other side. That involves sitting down in the sand with traditional owners and others—and I know the minister would propose to do that—and to take on board some of their concerns, because it is a developing situation.

In relation to the amendments before us, the member for Lingiari is right. We have had debates on other issues; we have laid down our markers. What the parliament is currently dealing with is very narrow. But it is symbolic that the government has at least taken on board some suggestions and has not said, ‘No amendments at any cost.’ There are other instances here that, in the cold, hard light of day, will show that what is being proposed is not necessarily workable.

I urge the government to adopt a conciliatory approach and that, if improvements are found necessary, they are made. But bear in mind, as I said, that it is about Indigenous people. They are not against mining. The land rights act is something that empowers them, and they should continue to be empowered by it.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Banks for his constructive comments. I want to assure him of a couple of things. I do not have a closed mind to changes. I have only one goal in mind, and that is to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians. This legislation deals in particular with traditional owners. The member for Banks mentioned sitting in the sand. I went to Galiwinku, which I am sure you are very familiar with, on two occasions. The second time was to sit down, in language, and go through chapter and verse what is being proposed there, which does involve this legislation, and then talk to the entire town that was assembled—again, it was all being interpreted.

They asked for two months. As the member for Banks and others who have had any real dealings with Indigenous people would know, these decisions are not made quickly. They asked for those two months. They have now said to me: ‘Can we have a few more weeks? It’s not that we do not want to do it, but we have to talk things through.’ That is perfectly reasonable. These are major decisions. For the benefit of those who are not so close to these issues, particularly around the issue of leasing, we should all remember that this is not a new proposal; this is an amendment to refine an existing proposal. Leases can be done, and they have been done. They are just very laborious. They are slow, they are frustrating and they are costly.

These amendments are aimed at trying to facilitate a more efficient way of achieving a goal that traditional owners may have. I also need to stress that no traditional owners will be required, under any circumstances, to lease back their land. I know there has been a debate in the other place about the way in which we handle things and whether or not they believe it could be done differently. Let us leave that aside. I want to make everyone understand that that is the way this is approached. When we say that the consultation with the traditional owners will continue from now, it is not that they have not been engaged with these changes; it is that for any specific community—any discrete community that decides that this may be a path they wish to go down—there will be a lot of consultation involving the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council or the Central Land Council or whichever land council is involved, sometimes private sector people who are going to add their advice to it and, of course, the federal government, the local councils themselves and, most importantly, the traditional owners.

Getting your mind around the concept of this change in ownership is a very major thing for people who, in many cases, have never really had to be part of that or considered being part of it. For them to take this step, it is paramount that they do so with understanding, acceptance and willingness. Otherwise, people are set up for failure. With respect to all sides of politics and those who have come here before with the best of intentions—and those at state and territory levels—I have to say that too often Indigenous groups have been set up for failure with the best intentions in mind. We do not want to repeat that, and I will certainly make every effort to ensure that any traditional owners who elect to use this legislation do so knowing exactly what is entailed, what the benefits are and, of course, what some of the issues are that may have to be resolved around those decisions, which some will see as not necessarily being in their personal best interests today. If they cannot accept that, that is reasonable and they remain under the current land ownership arrangements in those communities.

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

I want to thank the minister for what he has just said and the undertakings he has given, but I do want to make a couple of observations. The first is that, despite the fact that this proposal, initially for leasing, was derived from conversations between the Northern Territory government and Commonwealth, I do not support it. I have to tell you that the federal Labor Party does not support it. The reason is that principally it was done without discussion. This legislation foists on people a model—which the minister rightly says is ultimately a matter of choice—which I and many other people who are informed think has serious flaws in it. Be that as it may, that will not stop the passage of this legislation.

I also want to pick up on the minister’s observations about Galiwinku. I am not sure if you have read Senator Kemp’s response to part of the discussion in the Senate, but in the context of the discussions you have had at Galiwinku with the proposal for 50 houses he made it very clear—and it is worth reading the transcript—that that deal would require a change in leases. I have had discussions with people from Galiwinku subsequent to your visit and I will be having further discussions with them. It is very clear that they are confused by that proposal. They are confused because they say—rightly, I think—that they have an expectation that housing ought to be made available and provided. Certainly there is no objection that I have heard from anyone to the proposition that if people want to buy them they can buy them. That is not at issue. What is at issue is the fact that somehow or other the proposal for the housing will be subject to them agreeing to the lease.

If that is the case then I suspect that you might be in for a very long discussion and you might not like the response you get at the end. It seems to me that we should be separating the two issues. You can certainly put on the table a proposal for housing and say that one way of addressing this need would be to do it in the way you have described. Then you could say that there are other ways in which it could be done and these are they. Then you could say that they are not bound to accept the proposition you have put if they have another proposition, which means that they will get housing, and if they do not like the idea of leasing a town, well so be it. But we do not want people to be held to ransom by a government implying that the provision of housing will be subject to their agreeing to the lease proposals. That is certainly the message which was given by Senator Kemp in his contribution last night. But, in any event, it is not my intention to frustrate the House or the proceedings. We are happy to allow these to proceed and we will have a discussion about them and other matters at some other time.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a couple of brief comments in closing regarding the Galiwinku situation and, of course, the Nguiu situation. The 50 houses were part of a broader package which involved the Northern Territory government and the provision of policing—there are no sworn police permanently on Galiwinku, which has a population of 2,500. There is inadequate healthcare and there is inadequate education. It was about bringing together a package of economic development, housing, education, policing and a range of other initiatives which most Australians would take for granted as being our God-given right living in this wonderful country.

In relation to the 50 houses—and I particularly draw your attention to this—no-one will stop the provision of housing in Galiwinku if they decide to stay where they are. The 50 houses are through home ownership, and home ownership cannot happen when the land is not owned by an individual but is owned by a collective. That is money with which people would actually be assisted to build and own their own home. So there will be no reduction in the normal housing assistance that would be provided to Galiwinku. This is money that the budget has put aside to help Indigenous people own their own homes. It is a new approach. It is over and above that.

We all know that there is inadequate housing in many Indigenous communities. We are trying to find ways to improve the number of homes, the quality of the homes, how long the homes last, the rental collection on those homes and the maintenance of the homes—I guess, ultimately, for the people who say to me, ‘Why don’t I have the right to own my own home?’ They do not understand that because, as you say, it is their land. It is no individual’s land; it is collective land. It is the same in Nguiu in relation to the federal government’s commitment to a college—which of course is a church based college—in that the land tenure is very important when you start putting that sort of money in there: who actually owns it, and is it at the whim of a third party?

Most importantly, I reassure the people at Galiwinku that, in the event that they elect not to go down this path, that is their right and it remains their right. They will be eligible for housing from the Northern Territory government, which of course has the majority of the responsibility for housing, as do the states—for whatever there is in the normal way of things. We were trying to explain to them that there is a way of getting a lot more and, in doing so, improving all the situations that we know housing will. Again, I thank the member for Lingiari and the member for Banks for their constructive comments and thoughts, and I commend these amendments to the House.

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

I do not want you to walk out of here believing that we do not think that private capital ought to be used in Indigenous communities for the purchase or building of housing. That is not the case. But it is the case that there are grave concerns that what you have just described is effectively saying to people: ‘You’ve got a shortage of housing in this community. Under the normal course of events, you might be eligible for three, four or five houses per year. We know that you’ve got’—I do not know what the occupancy rates currently are in Galiwinku, but let us say this—‘14 or 15 to a house. We can ameliorate that situation by providing a new scheme, 50 houses, which you will individually purchase.’

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brough interjecting

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

No, I appreciate that. But clearly, people will say, and they have every right to say: ‘Hang on. We don’t want to do that. But we do want the 50 houses.’ And there are other ways in which it can be done. I would have thought, given the creativity that exists within this country, that we ought to be able to come to an arrangement where, for example, the housing is owned as happens in the United States in some places, where loans are underwritten for the provision of housing for a whole village community. In the case of Indigenous communities, I think there should be no problem in accessing private resources leveraged off federal money and Northern Territory government money to build housing. It does not mean that you need to have a home ownership scheme, but it does mean that you need to have a coherent capacity for getting the money together and assuring people that they will get a repayment for their investment, and you obviously need to ensure that people are paying appropriate rents and that their houses are being serviced. That is another way of doing a similar sort of thing, except that it says to people, ‘You don’t have to compel yourself to a 40- or 50-year payment schedule’—whatever it is—‘for the life of a mortgage.’

So I have to say that, whilst I understand the intention, I do not agree with it. I think we can provide options, but it seems to me that that option is a very hard one for people. They might accept it, and they have every right to do so if they want to, but it seems to me that it raises some serious issues which they will be thinking about. I know, having had discussions already, that people are thinking about this very deeply. They are not taking it for granted. They are asking questions. They are very sincere in trying to get answers to those questions. They want honesty and all the rest of it, as you would properly expect. Ultimately, they will make a decision. All I say to the minister is: if they happen to make a decision which does not suit the model you have proposed, then be flexible enough to look at an alternate model which might also require you to provide up to 50 houses.

Question agreed to.