Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. In the last week the Labor opposition released some significant policy with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. In the last week we have delivered our commitments in relation to justice and the Constitution and the meaningful and substantive change that we seek. We have announced our recommitment to the development of justice targets in closing the gap and our commitment to justice reinvestment for the first time in the history of this country. Upon the election of a federal Labor government there would be a commitment to a national approach to justice reinvestment, the proper evaluation of the Bourke site and three new launch sites in relation to justice reinvestment. We also announced our commitment to justice in gender equity, addressing the shocking rates of Indigenous incarceration amongst Aboriginal women, and also in relation to making sure that vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, particularly young women, at school can ensure that they finish their schooling.

There is much that we disagree with the government on in relation to Indigenous affairs policy. We have been highly critical of the Abbott-Turnbull government's commitment to and almost obsession with, it would seem, cutting their way to closing the gap. We have been very critical of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. But we support the legislation before the chamber. We will support good policy when we see fit, and we support this legislation.

Not enough Australians actually know about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It was conceived during the Whitlam Labor years but was passed with bipartisan support under the Fraser coalition government. For the benefit of those who may be listening, the legislation allows for title to land to be granted to a land trust on behalf of the traditional owners. That title is owned by the traditional owners in a communal body in the nature of Aboriginal land ownership. The act provides that land councils who represent traditional owners can negotiate with developers and mining companies on their behalf. It also provides that royalty equivalent funds from mining and development on Aboriginal land are to be paid to an Aboriginal land account and dispersed on an annual basis for the benefit of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory after an advisory committee has advised the minister about where that money should go. That is an important piece of legislation, and it has received bipartisan support since its inception back in 1976.

This legislation was born out of a long history of strength and struggle by Aboriginal people across the country, culminating in the historic Yolngu bark petitions, the Wave Hill walk-off and the moment, which is etched in our national history, when Gough Whitlam poured sand through the fingers of Vincent Lingiari. Recently we celebrated yet another historic moment of justice and healing—the 30th anniversary of the handback of Uluru to its traditional owners, the Anangu people. The Anangu people have been connected to Uluru and the surrounding land for thousands of years. It was a special relationship that was not always respected. Gough Whitlam's decision was controversial at the time, but it has now been accepted by the Australian community. It has been a tremendous asset to the Australian community and it is an important part of our history. The handback did not always enjoy understanding and bipartisanship, but I am very pleased that this has grown over the last 30 years.

The special connection of the traditional owners to their land was officially recognised by the government of the day and recently celebrated in the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act remains a critically important piece of legislation, which safeguards hard-fought Indigenous land rights in the Northern Territory. It is worth bearing that in mind every time this House considers changes, no matter how big or small, to this important piece of legislation. It is important that changes to this legislation have the full, free and informed consent of traditional owners, and this has been done here, to the credit of the government. I note that all four land councils in the Northern Territory, representing traditional owners in the Northern Territory, have been consulted and have given their support for this legislative amendment. As such, respecting the land councils' support—and we have contacted them ourselves—we support the amendments.

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act has been an important vehicle for Aboriginal economic development in the Northern Territory, and these amendments will empower Aboriginal people to further progress economic and social development opportunities in the Northern Territory. The community of Mutitjulu is located on Aboriginal land at the base of Uluru and the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, two World Heritage listed sites. Since my appointment as the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I once again visited Mutitjulu community and discussed issues in relation to the challenges they face. There are exciting economic opportunities for the Mutitjulu community in close proximity to these sites. As we honour the historic handback of Uluru, we must also recognise that the land that was handed back to its traditional owners was immediately leased to the Commonwealth government to be jointly managed by the government and the traditional owners for 99 years. The current lease expires in 2084.

The bill expands the function of the executive director of township leasing by allowing it, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land. Importantly, the bill provides that the executive director of township leasing may transfer a sublease of Aboriginal land to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation. This is important because traditional owners must be empowered to make decisions about their land and economic development. The community control of subleases of Aboriginal land gives Aboriginal people control over how their community is developed, and that is critical. It will allow for a leasing model that builds on the aspirations and vision of Aboriginal people for what they want to happen on their country. To support the transfer of subleases to Aboriginal corporations, the Aboriginals Benefit Account will provide funding to facilitate the transfer.

The bill makes some important amendments in relation to the delegation of land council functions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. While I am very happy that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has decided not to pursue the same path he took last year in relation to land councils, I think the government made a terrible and tragic mistake in terms of the relationship between the government and the land councils through the minister's almost obsessive attitude at the time. He wanted to bring in a regulation that would have stripped the land councils in the Northern Territory of some of the most important functions that they had, while at the same time making them legally responsible for decisions made by corporations that may not even have had any connection to that particular land or any Indigenous representation. We opposed that decision. We opposed it in the Senate and we were successful in stopping it, with the support of the crossbenchers and the Greens.

Those functions are critical for the land councils to exercise in a way that respects the traditional owners, and I am pleased that the government has had a change of heart. They have had an almost Damascus-road-conversion experience on this issue and want to restart their relationship with the land councils. It was a very inauspicious start for the minister. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs did not have the consent of traditional owners and the land councils to try and make those changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. But, finally, after the changes were fiercely opposed with much rancour and bitterness in the Northern Territory, the government saw fit not to make them.

A different approach was taken by the minister when he spoke at the Garma Festival. I spoke at the festival myself, and he spoke the night before me. He wanted to reset the relationship with the land councils, and I am pleased with the approach that he seems to have taken in relation to this legislation before the chamber. The opposition and the land councils have supported this particular amendment. We intervened in the past, but we will support this legislation. When the government puts forward good legislation that will benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we will support it. The minister has consulted in relation to this issue, and I am pleased that he has now listened to the concerns of traditional owners and the land councils.

We have to have genuine partnerships with the traditional owners and the land councils in the Northern Territory if we want to achieve anything. I hope that the minister and the government have learnt a very valuable lesson from the fiasco of the authoritarian way in which they tried, upon their election to government, to almost destroy the land councils. The amendments repeal section 28C, removing the minister's ability to override a land council decision not to delegate functions. We welcome that. This overriding decision-making power of the minister to overrule the land council, in addition to the inability of a land council to exercise functions or powers once they have been delegated, has impeded development in the area.

The land councils, as I say, are very important organisations in the Northern Territory. They comprise the traditional owners. We welcome the amendments to repeal provisions that would remove their decision making capacity in relation to their land. Similarly, we support the amendment to allow for variation of land council administrative areas at the request and with the agreement, consent, approval and approbation of the land councils. I congratulate the traditional owners of the parcels of land in respect of the Wickham River, Simpson Desert and the Vernon Islands, which are returned to their ownership under schedule 1 of the land rights legislation. We support the legislation before the chamber.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. I first acknowledge that each day as this parliament sits we pay our respects to the traditional owners. We acknowledge the importance of their place; we acknowledge them as the First Australians. We have come a long way and we still have a long way to go in securing what I think are appropriate opportunities for our First Australians in a society which has sometimes been seen as divided and, perhaps, a little unwelcome.

I was in the parliament when the land rights legislation was enacted. In fact, I entered the parliament in 1973. The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission was established at that time. Justice Edward Woodward was the commissioner of it, and it became known as the Woodward Royal Commission. It was the report initiated by the Whitlam government which gave rise to this legislation enacted by the Fraser government.

The commission, interestingly, had two reports. One presented in July 1973, and one of its key recommendations was the establishment of the land councils, the central and northern councils. Later we saw others, such as the Tiwi Land Council, and, from time to time, there have been views that there should be even further divisions. The second report, presented to the parliament in April 1974, was one that was drawn from a lot of the material that was submitted, particularly through the land councils, and the second report recommended that land rights legislation be introduced. I could go into detail, but it was legislation that achieved bipartisan support. I might say that I played a role later chairing the joint select committee on the implementation of Northern Territory land rights legislation. So I have had an interest in this legislation over a long period of time. There was a point at which I also was the minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and later for a merged portfolio of immigration, citizenship and Indigenous affairs. For me, we have been on a very important journey over a period of time and one not always as successful as I would like.

I remember when I was a young student at university studying with Charlie Perkins at that time and later knowing Margaret Valadian. These were the two Indigenous graduates that we had in Australia when I was a student and first became a member of parliament. I remember others that emerged over time. I look at people today who have had university degrees and contributed very significantly. I think of somebody like Professor Larissa Behrendt, whom I know and saw only a few days ago in Sydney. I think of the many thousands of Indigenous graduates that we have today, and I look back at the Tranby Aboriginal College in Sydney, around Sydney University, where I studied, and think of those First Australians who were receiving university education. For me, these were important developments, slow in coming. For many, those opportunities still do not exist, and that has to be addressed.

I had the great privilege of serving with Neville Bonner when he first arrived in the parliament as an Indigenous Australian in the Senate. There have been others that have come in the Senate. I am so delighted that I have been able to serve in a parliament with my friend Ken Wyatt, an Indigenous Australian and now a minister. I think, 'Isn't it great that we have come this far?' He has been elected not because he happens to be Indigenous but because he is a person with extraordinary ability and capacity and is able to make a contribution to this nation and its future. I am immensely proud that I am able to know him and to see his success.

For me, I still focus on the fact that we have a long way to go. I see many Indigenous people in a city like Sydney—some who are marginalised and some who are given their educational opportunities, and we see a lot with our schools that are helping young people to get sounder educations and to get into our universities. There are many who are achieving but there are still many who do not. The areas which I think are most challenging are those areas in which the level of contact has been more difficult, where isolation and the way in which we do our bit mean that many Indigenous people do not have the opportunities to make choices about what opportunities there may be for their future. I have always found this very difficult. How do you give self-management and self-determination and allow people to make elections and ensure that they are still able to make choices about how they participate in our broader society? How do they get the education that will help to enable them to make those choices?

I look at many of the places where people live and where we have given land rights, and where we think this is going to create opportunities for them, and, as I see it, those measures that we thought were going to be beneficial and helpful have not always worked as intended. I think that is one of the reasons we are looking at this particular legislation today. One of the things that has surprised me, when I have been into many communities where land is traditionally owned, is how you get people who may want to save and to work and to get themselves a home or create a business but who are going to do it on community-owned land. How do they feel that they have actually got a benefit—a benefit that they have worked to achieve—when the land interest is not theirs?

I see this legislation as particularly important because it will enable individuals who want to take up those opportunities to do so in an Indigenous community because there will be the opportunity for reasonably long-term leases to be granted by the community to an individual. I think that is a very significant movement. It may have to go further, but this legislation is about providing a new engagement for Indigenous Australians to get better outcomes in the communities in which they are living. In that sense, this delivers on a commitment that the government made to amend the Northern Territory land rights act to better empower communities—that is, the Aboriginal landowners—to be able to make these decisions to give opportunities to their people. It removes barriers that have been an impediment to economic development and opportunities.

If you get the impression that I think this is a very meaningful advance, you are right. Does it fully empower individuals to function in those environments? Time will tell, when we see whether the leases are made and how people are able to use them. But, for me, measures that work in partnership with the local communities to put in place localised decision making which can produce these benefits ought to be approved. I am pleased that the opposition has said that they support these measures, because, quite frankly, in relation to some of the issues that this legislation deals with—by working to resolve long-term tenure issues and to open up the Mutitjulu community to be able to take advantage of the unique economic opportunities offered by its location close to one of the most visited world heritage sites at Uluru—it becomes fairly obvious, doesn't it, that there are economic opportunities there that can be leveraged if people are freed to make those decisions.

I am pleased that the land councils, through this legislation, will be able to delegate their functions and powers to Indigenous corporations in a way which now, given the changes that we are making, will ensure it will happen. Back in 2006, we thought benefits of this sort might arise, but for particular reasons that did not happen. I am certainly glad that we have land councils that have recognised the importance of moving forward with this. I am certainly hopeful that the very significant investments that we are making in Indigenous-specific programs will ensure that people can take steps that will enable them to benefit more fully from all of the opportunities that are offered here in Australia.

I think the government's emphasis on helping our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have better opportunities for education, employment and economic opportunities is going to be important for the future. I have been watching these issues for some 40 years. I would have liked to have seen progress very much earlier than we have seen it. I saw the Whitlam government, I saw the Fraser government, I saw the government of Hawke and Keating, I saw the Howard government, and I have seen the governments of Rudd and Gillard and now Abbott and Turnbull. There have been governments of many different variations in that time, and there is nobody who can say, 'We had the perfect answer and we have made it work.' Nobody can claim that.

So I see this as a step along the way. If people are given the capacity to utilise their skills and their talents then I think we will see, inevitably, a better society. It can happen in some of the most remote and difficult areas of Australia, and if that happens it will be a very good thing. I will be watching these measures very closely. I hope that many Indigenous people will be able to take up the opportunities that this bill will provide, to be able to build their own home and be proud of it and to know that they have security of tenure, and to be able to create a business and be proud of it and to build economic opportunities for themselves and their families. I think it is a good reform, and, if it produces those sorts of outcomes, I think it will make Australia a better place for our First Australians.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to 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.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also speak in favour of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. Like the member for Lingiari, I congratulate the government on introducing this legislation. It will be unanimously supported in this House and will be a net contributor to the wellbeing and welfare of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. That is why my colleague the member for Lingiari speaks in such a passionate manner about this subject, born not just of his great and substantial knowledge but of his lifelong commitment to the issues that are underpinned by this legislation.

This bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to expand the functions of the Executive Director of Township Leasing by allowing it on behalf on the Commonwealth to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land. The bill of course will also facilitate a resolution of the irregular and uncertain tenure arrangements in the community of Mutitjulu. The community of Mutitjulu is located on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, and in 1985 it was leased by the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Land Trust to the Director of National Parks for 99 years. That lease expires in 2084. At the time of the creation of the lease, of the effective handover of the rock to Aboriginal peoples, I was living in the Northern Territory and I had met Warren Snowdon many times. The decision by the Hawke government to transfer the title of the rock was highly contentious. It was a tough political battle and a battle that was engaged in with vigour by all sides—it was a battle which I believe brought no credit to the then government of the Northern Territory or the then opposition in the federal parliament. At that time hundreds of thousands of dollars of territory taxpayers' money was spent on a campaign to stop the rock from being given away. I have before me and ad that was run in the Northern Territory News. It is headed 'The rock belongs to all Australians!' and declares:

On October 26 without consultation or mandate, the federal Labor government will hand over Ayers Rock and the whole of the Uluru National Park to fewer than 100 Australians. They will then pay these special Australians $75,000 a year to lease it back from them. All Australians visiting Ayers Rock will pay to see it, and the new owners will get 20% of that fee.

This was an ad paid for by the government of the Northern Territory. This was a campaign joined by the federal opposition—by then opposition leader John Howard. This was a campaign that saw some of the very worst elements of our country come forward to argue what they thought was a principle argument about not allowing the rock to be given away. I was a young man at the time and I watched the thoughtful enthusiasm of Clyde Holding, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He grappled with the very poor political environment that had been created around what was in fact a gesture by the Australian government and by the Australian parliament—but, more than a gesture, it was getting real administration and process and employment and economic livelihood into the land rights debate in a way that was critically important. Clyde visited the Northern Territory on many occasions to explain the Commonwealth's position. The then Chief Minister, Ian Tuxworth, wound the campaign up with such ferocity in the Northern Territory—this is all documented in the Northern Territory News papers of the day, in 1983. One screaming headline declared 'Hawke gives Uluru Park to Aborigines' and the graphic used by the Northern Territory News is a silhouette of Ayers Rock with Clyde Holding's image on top and the words 'The final solution.' The campaign run at that time brought nothing but disgrace and embarrassment on us as Northern Territorians and on us as a nation.

I am really pleased that as we reflect on those events of the 1980s and as we reflect on what has become the reality of land rights in the Northern Territory, as much as I disagree that we can do gas mining on land in the Northern Territory I completely agree with the principle that if we do not have Indigenous approval we cannot go forward. That is not about the geology of gas mining, that is not about the interaction of gas and water, that is not about the technical doability of it—it is just about the reality that if you do not have Indigenous consent to use Indigenous land you cannot use it.

As we speak here today, according to the Northern Land Council more than 80 per cent of the value of extracted minerals in the Northern Territory comes from mining on Aboriginal owned land. This amounted last year to minerals production worth more than $1 billion—$1 billion a year from land that is Aboriginal owned. Today at enterprise level and regionally throughout the Northern Territory, northern Western Australia and northern Queensland, we see outstanding examples of Aboriginal employment and participation. In remote regions of our country employment of Aboriginal Australians in the mining industry has increased by 71 per cent for males and an astonishing 307 per cent for females over the period 2006 to 2011. Today in the Northern Territory approximately 30 per cent of Aboriginal lands are under exploration or in negotiation for exploration, and we could see that proportion rise. I hope we do. When we see it rise, we will see it rise because of the property rights that are implicit in the operation of the land rights act in the Northern Territory—in the way in which the land councils work with project proponents, supported by their communities, engaging in the interests of their communities to create an economic livelihood that creates income, that creates opportunity, that creates better health and that creates better outcomes because of the strength of decisions that were made in this place by previous governments dating back to the 1970s but carrying the torch of good public policy and good public administration that have benefited Aboriginal people for near on 40 years.

So I speak on a bill that not only improves the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act but also improves on the nature of the property rights that attach to it. It expands the capacity and the operations of this act into numerous other townships and creates the capacity for leasing, transferring and subleasing such land. The creators of the framework of that legislation were the Whitlam and Fraser governments. Passing through the tumultuous and unpleasant period of the early 1980s, when the Uluru debate took place, we find ourselves now, some decades later, proudly proclaiming not just the validity of this legislation but also the profound economic impact that we have when we create land rights, respect decisions made by Aboriginal people and seek informed consent from Aboriginal people. That informed consent brings with it economic rights and obligations. It brings with it the dignity of engagement from our great companies, our great mining and resource companies, but also increasingly tourism operators who are looking at bringing tourism opportunities into remote and regional Australia to explain and showcase our Indigenous cultures in a way that creates good jobs on country, good careers, great livelihoods and careers that are transferable to other locations. We see a range of opportunities that grow from the courage of people who, in this parliament over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, made decisions to give rights and benefits and to recognise ownership of land. They courageously underpinned that with legislation that has survived and is able to be amended and improved in this way.

I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the minister and the government for bringing it forward. As I reflect back on those bitter days of the battles of the mid-1980s on the proposition of providing Aboriginal control of lands with which they have cultural connection and over which they have rights, I can only feel in myself, as I reflect on the people who fought these battles through the 1970s and who gathered and celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Uluru decision recently, that the fine thoughts and aspirations have indeed been borne out, even though for a short time in the early 1980s it looked like the darker angels of our nature would prevail once again.

This bill will go through this House and the other place without opposition and with the complete support of our parliament, as it should. I congratulate the government on bringing this legislation forward.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to provide the summing up of this amendment bill which we have been debating today, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015. I thank all those honourable members for their contributions: the member for Blair, the member for Lingiari, the member for Brand and the member for Berowra.

This bill, which makes amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, will empower Indigenous landowners and community members with localised decision-making about the use of their land. It offers the opportunity to resolve tenure issues and streamline land council operations to promote land owners and community members playing an integral role in fostering economic development in their communities.

By enabling the Executive Director of Township Leasing to hold a sublease of Aboriginal land and to transfer that sublease to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation, this bill enables the settlement of a sublease at the community of Mutitjulu. This will work to resolve tenure issues and will open up the Mutitjulu community to take advantage of the unique economic development opportunities offered by its location in close proximity to one of Australia's most visited World Heritage sites, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park.

By improving how the Northern Territory land councils delegate their functions and powers to Aboriginal corporations, this bill removes deterrents and encourages delegations to be made. This will streamline the operations of land councils and bolster localised decision-making, and it will reap economic benefits for Indigenous communities, with decisions made at a local level in commercial time frames.

By providing for a clear process to vary the administrative boundaries of existing land councils, this bill will enable the resolution of agreements between land councils to ensure the most logical and culturally appropriate arrangements for the administration of Aboriginal land are in place.

Finally, this bill meets this government's commitment to return Aboriginal land to Aboriginal people by scheduling three parcels of land. This will allow for the granting of those parcels of land to the land trusts and the resolution of three significant land claims in the Simpson Desert, in the Wickham River area, and on and around the Vernon Islands.

On behalf of the government and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I would like to thank the Northern Territory land councils for their partnership in developing this bill. It is a testament to our relationship and joint commitment to empower Indigenous landowners and improve outcomes for Indigenous communities. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.