Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Aboriginal Land Lights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020. I am also circulating an amendment in my name, which I shall address as I speak. I start by paying my respects and offering the greetings of the parliament to the Mirarr Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of the Jabiru township, which is the subject of this bill. Labor will be supporting this bill, which has been a long time coming for the Mirarr people—and I once again pay my respects to the Mirarr people and say thank you for your attention, thank you for your patience. This is such an important issue for your community, and I absolutely recognise that.

The town of Jabiru was established in the early 1980s, without the consent of the Mirarr people, to service the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. The town and the mine are surrounded by Kakadu National Park, Aboriginal land which is leased to the Commonwealth Director of National Parks. The Mirarr never wanted the Ranger mine or the Jabiru township that goes with it. The good news for them is that the mine will soon be closed and the site will be rehabilitated. As for the township of Jabiru, that in itself is substantial infrastructure that now serves as an administrative centre for West Arnhem Land. It is home to hundreds of people and is a special recreation and accommodation hub for the tourism industry, especially visitors to the Kakadu National Park.

The effect of this bill will be to return the ownership of Jabiru to the Mirarr people and to allow for a community entity, representing the minister, to hold a head lease over the town. It is important that the House is reminded that it was a Labor government, back in October 2009, which set this course of Mirarr self-determination, with an in-principle agreement for the amendments to the land rights act. Labor, in January last year, committed to a major upgrade of the Kakadu National Park visitor facilities. Undoubtedly it was the knowledge of that commitment that spurred the Prime Minister to commit similar funding. Labor is glad that a new Mirarr community entity, rather than the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing, will be holding the head lease over Jabiru township, because this reflects the preference of the Northern Territory land councils and traditional owners. Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, and I am pleased to record the NLC's support for this bill. I pay my respects to the NLC. I personally know very well the reasonably new CEO, Marion Scrymgour.

Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, as I have just said. After the bill was introduced back in May last year, the NLC noted that it would allow for the transition of the township from a mining town to a regional service centre, as well as a tourism hub that will drive economic activity throughout the West Arnhem region.

For many years the Mirarr people have been planning and looking forward to the shutdown of the Ranger mine, as we said, in 2021. They have developed a comprehensive master plan that will transform the Jabiru economy from one that has been focused on mining and support services to one based on the social, cultural and natural resources wealth of the region, and some of those advising the Mirarr have walked me through what that plan is.

The Mirarr people have withstood immense pressure from political and mining industry influences for many decades now, and their culture has remained strong and vibrant. Now, finally, they have the opportunity to chart their own destiny, to manage their own affairs and to prosper from their own endeavours—self-determination in real terms. The Mirarr community entity owned township lease will provide a local decision-making entity. It will allow the management of the lease to be put directly into the hands of the traditional owners, who will be able to make decisions that uphold their cultural connection to land.

I know the Mirarr people have been looking forward with much anticipation to the passage of this legislation, and we absolutely wish the Mirarr people well in their future business. There is much hard work ahead of them to realise the potential that will be delivered by the passage of this bill. It is the hope of the traditional owners that this transition will foster long-term economic development not only for the township but for the greater West Arnhem region, and Labor joins the Mirarr and the traditional owners in that hope. Labor has always been committed to greater self-determination for First Nations Australians.

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) recognises the importance of Aboriginal land rights for the self-determination First Nations people;

(2) agrees that, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill, the right to self-determination entails the entitlement of peoples to have control over their destiny and to be treated respectfully;

(3) notes that the recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable, heartbreaking and disrespectful to First Nations people; and

(4) calls on the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including:

(a) do everything in its power to free the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas; and

(b) adequately invest in housing and essential services—including access to clean water—for First Nations people living on Native Title land".

I have moved this amendment today in part so that Labor can speak about a matter which has caught the attention of and shocked many people in the community. Before I move on to that topic, I once again give my warmest congratulations and my warmest and best wishes to the Mirarr for their endeavours to do with the transfer of town ownership.

The matter I want to speak of that has caught national attention is the ownership of the Aboriginal flag and the use of its copyright by a private company for profit, not pride. The Aboriginal flag was first flown in Adelaide on National Aborigines Day in 1971—a very long time ago—at Victoria Square, also known in the Kaurna language as Tarntanyangga. In 1972 the flag became the national flag of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra after it was flown there. I know that Harold Thomas and Gary Foley took that flag to the tent embassy. The upper, black half of the flag represents the Aboriginal people of Australia. The lower, red half represents the red ochre—earth. The yellow circle at the centre represents land and sun, the giver of life and protector.

The Federal Court has recognised Harold Thomas as the author of that flag, and that is an important point in this discussion. Harold is a deeply respected Luritja man from Central Australia. He was the first Aboriginal person to graduate from an Australian art school, and he holds an honorary degree at the University of Adelaide. We understand that Harold has absolutely every right, as the copyright holder, to do as he wishes in terms of the flag. But we also say very much that, while we recognise Harold's copyright, Australia is made up of many Aboriginal nations—hundreds, as well as the Torres Strait—and the Aboriginal flag is one symbol that unites those Aboriginal nations. It is such a universal and important symbol that I actually have it tattooed on my left arm. I'm not going to show you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I promise you it's there. Aboriginal people across this country display the flag with pride, as do many non-Aboriginal people who share this land and acknowledge and celebrate the oldest living culture in the world.

It is for all of these reasons that so many people have been shocked and appalled by the restrictions which have recently come into force about the use of the flag. WAM Clothing and its associated entities assert that they hold the right to use of the flag on clothing and in digital form. It is a matter of public record that Aboriginal organisations—including health and community organisations, which I'm sure the member for Lingiari will address—have been sent cease and desist orders and letters demanding that they stop putting the flag on clothes and uniforms unless they pay WAM to do so and have been told they can't use the flag online or on social media.

This came to a head on the weekend, when the AFL could not use the Aboriginal flag for the Dreamtime round which was played in Darwin. There was no flag on the guernseys and no flag on the ground, but there were thousands of flags in the crowd as people, in an act of defiance, reclaimed this important symbol, a symbol which is protected under the Flags Act of this country. The takeover of the flag by private interests has appalled so many people, particularly because WAM Clothing has publicised links to another corporate entity, Birubi Art, a company which was last year fined $2.3 million after being prosecuted by the ACCC for selling fake Indigenous art made overseas.

I have spoken to very many people who have one simple question: How could this happen? How could the Aboriginal flag be held hostage? How could a company engaged in exploitation of the flag for profit be able to stop local Aboriginal organisations using it as they long have? This is an issue of morality in my mind, and the question is: how is this right? WAM Clothing should do the right thing and give the flag back, because just because something might be legal doesn't always mean that it's morally right. The government should work with all parties to free the flag. Surely it is not beyond our collective will to fix this.

I will finish off by saying once again that our warmest wishes go to the Mirarr people of that extraordinary part of Australia and the town of Jabiru, which I'm sure many people in this chamber know well. I've certainly been there with many others. It will be well cared for, well loved and well looked after by the Mirarr. In saying that, I would reiterate the very real points I've made in relation to the amendments that I have moved—amendments that are very important in terms of recognising self-determination and land rights, and amendments that really do back-in the destiny of the Mirarr—and also note with concern where things are at in relation to that one unifying symbol of very diverse peoples. Many people don't understand, from an Aboriginal cultural perspective, how diverse our nations are. The assistant minister would know of the Biripi people of the Central Coast. There are some very famous Biripi people, actually. We all have those stories in our collective understanding of the areas that we represent.

That diversity is important to understand. But the one that unifies everyone, no matter what the diversity contains and no matter what the stories contain, is the image of the flag. People might argue that I'm playing identity politics and this is not something that should occupy the time of the House. Let me assure you that it is not that sort of politics; it is really important, and not just to First Peoples. The Aboriginal flag is recognised as a formal flag of this country. It is part of the Flags Act 1953 and, therefore, it is a flag of this nation. I would guarantee that not many of us have been to a school, a public building or a parliament in this nation that does not recognise that flag. We all recognise it with pride and a collective sense of what it represents. So I move the amendment in my name and, once again, send my warmest regards to the Mirarr.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the original motion but not the amendment. I congratulate the Mirarr people on the decisions and the pressure they have put to bring about this outcome for their people. They are going to convert Jabiru from a mining town into a tourism town. I've often thought that tourism in the remote areas of Australia offers the most possibilities for economic outcomes to the advantage of the people who own those areas and live there.

The Ranger mine is closing in June 2021. This has been on the cards for a few years now. It is good that, as that date approaches, we are seeing movement. Jabiru is a mining township, and the federal government has committed $216 million to repurpose and revamp the town so it is fit for purpose, fit for investment and fit to operate a tourism industry. To achieve investment in any remote community, what we need is investment certainty. One of the problems that we've had with Indigenous owned land over a long period of time is the community ownership model.

There have been moves, in the Northern Territory, to set up 49- to 99-year lease proposals, which allow for people to invest with some kind of certainty. As far I'm aware, we haven't managed to get that over the border in South Australia yet, and I will come to that a bit later. I think it is something that needs to happen. No-one less than Noel Pearson talks about the value of people being able to individually own their own land or to have certainty around their continuity of occupation, if you like, and I concur with those thoughts. These are interesting and sometimes vexing questions—how a community can go from community ownership to individual rights within that community—but I think they are a very important economic step which need to be recognised.

Jabiru is being transferred to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust, which, as I say, will enable somewhere between a 44- and a 99-year lease on the township. The ownership of the land will lie with the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust. The management of that can lie with the Aboriginal corporation, or they can lease out the management as well. Either way, at the end of the day, they still own the land and will still call the shots. So that is a very good outcome. What we hope the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 will do and what the Mirarr people absolutely hope is that it will maximise employment, economic activity and underwriting of social services of communities and maximise the benefits of the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust asset.

It is so important that, in relation to the remote areas of Australia that are owned by Aboriginal corporations, we find an economic future for them. In my patch of the world, we have, amongst other things, the Aboriginal lands of the APY—the APY Lands trust—but we also have other Aboriginal lands that sit within South Australia. APY, for instance, covers over 10 per cent of South Australia. There's a population there getting up towards 4,000 people. Traditionally, much of that country was cattle country operated by white companies, if you like, and the Tonkin government actually bought out those rights in the eighties and passed full ownership to the APY Lands council.

Those traditional industries, at their peak, probably employed 200 or 300 people across that area of land. If those same old, original cattle stations were operated at peak efficiency now, they would probably employ 20—such is the case in agriculture right across Australia. We employ far, far fewer people than we used to do. So there is an opportunity there for the local populations to participate in economic activity, but it's pretty limited. The most successful private enterprises or industries on the APY Lands at the moment are probably the arts centres, where Aboriginal art has become very popular. They're turning out a fair bit of it, and it's highly prized. In fact, this government has invested money in an art gallery in Sydney, which I had the great privilege of opening about three years ago, and another one now in Adelaide, which is also an art centre where they can develop their skills. This is particularly for people that might be in Adelaide for medical purposes, for instance. Either way, this is one of the economic lifelines, if you like. But it's nowhere near enough.

What I really like about the Mirarr proposal for Jabiru and Kakadu is that it is focusing on an industry of the future. It's why I have always been a supporter of the Yulara concept, for instance. I think the idea of actually bringing people together in a concentrated workplace where you can manage their training is one of the transitions to the wider world. We should be able to produce people that can work in the tourism industry in remote occupations that may wish to go and run a hotel in London eventually—that's what one would hope.

I think tourism offers the great prospect, but of course our APY Lands—and I said it covers 10 per cent of South Australia: 103,000 square kilometres—are about 500 kilometres across and 200 kilometres from north to south. There are some magnificent environmental assets in the APY Lands. There are three fantastic mountain ranges: the Tomkinson, Mann and Musgrave. The Musgraves feature the highest mountain in South Australia, Mount Woodroffe, which is a little under 5,000 feet in the old money.

It is stunning country, I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is country that very few Australians see because it is closed country. It's a decision of the APY Lands trust that you need a permit—we need a permit—to go into that area of South Australia. It's a little hard to set up a tourist industry if you don't actually allow tourists to come in. This is a big leap for the APY Lands that in many ways have not achieved the levels of education that we would like to see in remote populations, despite pretty strong efforts from both sides of politics and state and federal governments. We still are not hitting those milestones that we need to in these remote communities.

But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that if you want to destroy a culture the best way to do it is to destroy people's purpose. The people that lived there traditionally had a purpose. They had to hunt, gather and feed their family, and protect them and keep them out of the elements. Largely as a society, we have taken over that role in remote communities. We've put in shops. I make the point: one of the biggest sellers in the shops is frozen roo tails. That tells you something. It's a sharp underlying factor of what has changed in those areas. Hunting and gathering is out the window. We supply an income to people that enables them to live—some would say live okay. We provide housing, we provide health care and we provide education and schools, and a lot of that infrastructure is first-class, I have to tell you. There are still some things, I think, that could be better—there could be some more housing—but most of it is first-class.

At the end of the day, despite any effort in education, if there is no natural economy there's nothing to do. You can't get a job in an industry that doesn't exist, and so we really need to focus on what it is we can do in situ that looks like we could make a success out of it. The mining industry is often thrown up as being a possibility—and of course it's interesting that in this bill we're actually talking about the closing down of the mining entity at Jabiru, but that mining operation has ceased anyhow. But the mining industry does offer opportunities. However, I make the point when it comes to the APY Lands: gee, it's got to be a good resource; it's got to be an excellent resource, because it's more than 1,000 kilometres in any direction to the transport routes, to the sea. Anything you do in the outback of South Australia has to be so much better than somewhere else.

You're talking about populations that are going to be expensive to maintain onsite. You're talking largely about a FIFO population, supplying electricity where no grid exists, supplying road networks where the network is poor at best even though we are spending a significant amount of money on doing up the main road into the APY Lands. But, essentially, you have to focus on what it is you can do. I think tourism is one of those things. I think maybe we are a few years away, but that's what this bill is telling me. There's a shining light there: the communities have actually recognised that this is their pathway to a better future.

The point I'm making, in using this bill to speak about my patch—which is what members in this place often do, and we should—is for my people to lift their eyes up to the opportunities of the moment. We have people that have gone through the trade centre on the APY Lands up to Yulara for trading. Sadly, in my opinion, too many of them come back. Whether it's the draw of home, the draw of the land, or whether it's just too big a leap, I'm not too sure. It's one of those things that is a little frustrating, because I think, given the opportunity, we really need to see people take those steps up the ladder. But the steps up the ladder would be nowhere near as great if we actually had an operating industry on the ground, in situ.

To make the point: for anyone who has ever driven to Uluru, or Ayers Rock, coming up from South Australia, the main road in—with deference to those traditional owners and pastoralists who live along the route—is as dull as, um, something to do with dogs, I've got to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker! It isn't an inspirational drive. But I can tell you what: if you turn off at Indulkana and drive out to the lands, past the Tomkinson and Musgrave ranges, and take the route over the border and up to the rock from there, you are in for an exceptional drive. It's some of the most beautiful country in Australia. So we have this incredible natural asset that, to this point in time, we have not been utilising.

As I said, it's a fairly big leap, but, unless we have our eye on an objective, we're never likely to get there. We've actually got to be planning for this as being the future, because, as I said, if we don't find an economy for the 4,000 people who live up there, in another 50 years they won't remember what their culture is. We've actually got to find a useful means. Everybody in this world needs to feel useful at what they do on a day-to-day basis. Our religions alone are not enough to sustain us. We actually need to be actively involved in feeding, clothing—making our mark in the world. That is no different for white culture or for Aboriginal culture or any other culture that you'd like to cast your mind to around the world.

In this case, I say to those people who live in those parts of my electorate, and to others who live in remote communities: have a look at the tourism industry. Think about it. It's interesting that, in this time frame, just recently, down further south, on the Maralinga lands, a tourism operation has begun, taking people out to the sites where the atomic bombs were set off when the British were there testing bombs. Who'd have thunk it, quite frankly—that we'd be taking people out to this site that has caused so much distress for the nation and particularly for the local Indigenous owners over a long time? But they are now seeing the opportunities and making the most of them, and I think that's a very encouraging sign.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grey for that thoughtful contribution. The question is in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is very happy to support this bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020, because it will facilitate the grant of a section 19A township lease and the complete transfer of ownership of the Jabiru township land to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. In doing so, the bill does something concrete to recognise the rights of one of our First Nations peoples to determine their own future. The bill is, therefore, as welcome from this government as it is unusual because, very clearly, this bill is a welcome anomaly from what has been going on for First Nations people over seven long and dispiriting years of Liberal Party rule.

But, before I turn to that deplorable legacy of inaction, I should acknowledge that the groundwork for this bill was laid seven years ago, in the last year of federal Labor government. That Labor government introduced and passed the Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013, to give effect to the settlement of the Jabiru native title claim. Introducing that legislation in 2013, the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, said:

The bill continues the government's commitment to ensuring Aboriginal people's ongoing connection to their land is recognised by scheduling further parcels of land as Aboriginal land. It will benefit traditional owners, residents and business operators in Jabiru and the wider Kakadu region in the Northern Territory. Importantly, it will also provide traditional owners with significant economic development opportunities.

…   …   …

Importantly, this bill recognises the traditional ownership of Jabiru by the Mirarr people.

My friend and colleague the member for Lingiari also spoke in support of that bill, in 2013, saying this:

By adding this land to schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act, it allows for the land granted as Aboriginal land to be handed back to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. There has never been any question that the Mirarr people were the traditional owners and are the traditional owners of Jabiru. Their connection to this country goes back many, many thousands of years. In fact Australia's oldest human occupation site, you might be interested to know, known as Malakunanja II, is the traditional lands of the Mirarr, as is of course the Ranger uranium mine and the site of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine.

Now, with this current bill, the transfer of ownership of the Jabiru township to the Mirarr people may finally take place.

This bill puts right the decision made by the Fraser government to act on the 1977 recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry—the Fox inquiry—which was in the following terms, and I quote from the second report of the inquiry:

That the land which constitutes the town, if one is built in the Region, not Land Claim become Aboriginal land but become part of the national park.

The Fox inquiry recognised the Mirarr people as the traditional owners of the land but withheld from them the formal title of Aboriginal land. This bill would facilitate the granting of that title. Labor welcomes this.

If the House can forgive me at a moment of reminiscence, I can say that I have a particular personal connection with the subject of this bill. In 1979 and 1980, I worked as a Northern Land Council field officer with the Mirarr people and other First Nations people of this region in setting up the Kakadu National Park in this beautiful part of our country. All of Kakadu National Park was Aboriginal land, except for the area on which the town of Jabiru was to be built. It is satisfying, it will be satisfying, to see this last piece returned to the traditional owners.

Now to the present. It was the most recent former Liberal Prime Minister, the one deposed by the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who declared in June 2018 that 'Governments have got to stop doing things to Aboriginal people and start doing things with them.' While this bill is a happy example of doing something with First Nations people, it is an approach of which we have seen very, very little from this government. By way of example, I will begin with the issue of native title, because the right to lands, the link between traditional ownership and self-determination, is fundamental. Essentially, when it comes to the issue of native title, the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have been asleep at the wheel. They did not stir when, in June 2015, the Australian Law Reform Commission delivered its review of the Native Title Act 1993 called Connection to country. That report marked the first major review of the critically important issue of connection in native title determinations, since the introduction of the Native Title Act. That report considered a number of related matters and made 30 recommendations for reform. It is now more than five years since that report was received by the government, and the government has still not even bothered to formally respond.

But this government certainly woke up when the full Federal Court of Australia delivered its decision in the case of McGlade v Native Title Registrar. Suddenly, it wasn't the interests of First Nations people at stake but rather those of commercial third parties, whose agreements to exploit lands, pursuant to agreements with traditional owners, were suddenly thrown into question. This government responded to the McGlade decision with astonishing speed and focus, expediting amendments to the Native Title Act in order to protect those third-party interests in a flurry of activity, including a belated, begrudging and largely perfunctory consultation with Indigenous Australians when Labor demanded the government talk to someone other than resource companies about changes to native title law.

The relationship between First Nations people and the Australian justice system is another area of great difficulty in which this government has consistently failed to act. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service have long provided a vital service to First Nations people who encounter the justice system. They have operated with a degree of autonomy in carrying out their vital role. But this year ATSILS were, against the strident objections of their leadership and the communities they serve, folded into a newly established national mechanism by the Attorney-General. This decision directly contradicted not only the clearly expressed views of the Indigenous community but also the very first recommendation of the Review of the Indigenous Legal Assistance Programreport that was commissioned and received by the government last year. That first recommendation stated:

To facilitate a sustainable, community-controlled Indigenous legal assistance sector, Commonwealth Government funding should continue to be delivered through a standalone, specificpurpose funding programwith minimum five-year funding terms.

Indigenous groups have expressed opposition to and deep concern about this decision by the government. In an open letter, some 100 organisations state that the Morrison government's decision to ignore the key recommendation of the ILAP review is:

… disappointing, not least because the Federal Government has been committed to and responsible for the funding and administration of ATSILS since their inception almost 50 years ago. This began after the 1967 Referendum in recognition of the Commonwealth's special responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is important to retain this Commonwealth leadership.

…   …   …

All evidence and research show that working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and ACCOs is the best way forward. The Federal Government should honour its long-standing commitment, keep ILAP and adequately fund ATSILS to close the justice gap.

We call on the next government to urgently overturn this decision to abandon ILAP and instead retain a standalone Commonwealth program that supports the ATSILS and the communities they serve.

I could say a great deal more about the government's failure to engage constructively on issues of Indigenous justice, but I will move on to what is perhaps the greatest betrayal of First Nations people by the current government—that is, the betrayal of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Unlike this government, Labor is committed to honouring the Uluru Statement from the Heart and to working towards a genuine reconciliation with First Nations people. That includes working with First Nations people to establish an Indigenous voice to the parliament. In contrast, this government has used its preferred methods of governing—fear and lies—to undermine the very idea of the voice. It was appalling to see a fear campaign about a so-called third chamber of parliament based on deliberately concocted falsehoods and spread by the Liberal and National parties for the purpose of killing the voice before it could ever be heard. I say again: this bill represents a welcome departure from the general record of this government, and I am happy to congratulate those who have worked on bringing this bill into this place. I hope that it is the first of many actions by this government to actually move our nation closer to reconciliation and to improve the lives of First Nations people.

I will conclude by briefly discussing another issue of importance to First Nations people and, indeed, to all Australians—that is, the need to defend the Aboriginal flag from the current constraints on its use. This is yet another matter which the federal government should have resolved long ago, because it is clearly within their power to do so. An Aboriginal owned and led social enterprise and fashion label, called Clothing the Gap, have been running a Free the Flag campaign since being sent legal threats for using the Aboriginal flag on their clothing by the current copyright licensee. Clearly, this is an entirely unacceptable situation. As my friend and colleague the member for Barton, just last week, said:

It's heartbreaking to see a private company holding this symbol of incredible strength for its private profit.

The Aboriginal flag is a national symbol, but it's not being treated like one.

This matter can and must be resolved, and resolved in a manner that respects the copyright interests of the designer of the flag, Mr Harold Thomas. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, let me acknowledge the contributions by the member for Barton, the member for Grey and the member for Isaacs and commend them for their contributions. I'll say to the member for Grey that I know well the country he talks about, having worked out of the Petermann Ranges for a number of years, starting in 1978. It was an interesting time. But I can attest to the beauty of that country and the desire of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara people to be self-determining and to make their own decisions. I therefore suggest to the honourable member that he should raise his concerns about the economy of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara country with the elders and the community leaders and have a discussion with them about what he thinks.

I thank the member for Barton, and I will come to the issues around the flag a little later. I do want to make an observation about the contribution from the member for Isaacs. Like him, I have a history with this part of the Northern Territory. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I was first elected to this place in 1987. I had cause this morning, I don't know why, to look at my first speech. In it I talked about the sorts of issues being addressed by the member for Barton and the member for Isaacs—that is, the need to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, the rights of our First Nations people. In that speech, I raised the issue of constitutional recognition, to which the member for Isaacs has referred.

There is no question that this government needs to raise the bar, and to do the things that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around this country want them to do to address the Statement from the Heart. It's not much of a stretch to see where the First Nations Voice should be, and there must be a voice. There needs to be constitutional recognition, there needs to be truth-telling and there needs to be a treaty. That is a position at the heart of Labor Party policy.

I go to the issue of the Jabiru area and the Mirarr people. The member for Isaacs referred to the Fox inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, it may surprise you to learn that in 1976 I visited what was a trial pit for the then Ranger Uranium Mine—which subsequently came to be the Ranger Uranium Mine—and made submissions, not to the inquiry but in public advocacy, around the need to protect that part of the world from uranium mining. I was opposed to uranium mining then and I am opposed to the nuclear industry now. The Aboriginal people came to an agreement with the Commonwealth around uranium mining in the area which we know as Kakadu, and the adjacent land, and, as the member for Isaacs referred to, the Fox inquiry made certain recommendations, most of which were adopted by the then government. Part of that was that, in the 1980s, a town was required to service the new Ranger Uranium Mine. That town is in Kakadu National Park on land leased from the Director of National Parks to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The impact of the legislation we're talking about today will see in 2021, when that lease expires, land being leased to an Aboriginal entity run by the Mirarr for their purposes, to develop the township and the economic and social benefits that can be derived from it for the whole of western Arnhem Land, but principally in the first instance for the traditional owners.

It's worth noting that in 2007 the Australian government amended the land rights act by introducing section 19A to provide for the leasing of townships on Aboriginal land to the Commonwealth statutory officer the Executive Director of Township Leasing for a period of 99 years. This scheme was funded by the Aboriginal Benefits Account, which is a statutory fund set up under the land rights act from mining royalty equivalents. This money, some of which was derived out of the Ranger royalty equivalents, was then diverted through this arrangement by the Commonwealth to the Executive Director of Township Leasing for his purposes. In October 2009 the government, under the then leadership of Kevin Rudd, amended the land rights act for the scheduling of Aboriginal land so that a grant could be made to an Aboriginal land trust in Jabiru, conditional on its leasing the land back to the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory government in the form of a township lease. From that time until 2016 the Northern Land Council, on behalf of the Mirarr traditional owners, sought unsuccessfully to negotiate and execute a lease with the then NT government. In 2015 the then Country Liberal Party government formally withdrew its support for that proposed option. In 2016 the NLC recommended negotiation with the Australian government for the Commonwealth option, utilising a section 19A lease. The NT government resumed talks after the election of the Gunner government in August 2016.

As the member for Isaacs said, in 2013 the land rights act was amended to provide for, among other things, shorter term leases than 99 years and for township leases to be held by an approved community entity instead of only by the Executive Director of Township Leases. These changes represented a new policy approach by the Commonwealth but did not apply to the Jabiru provisions as the NT option was still being pursued at the time.

Then, in collaboration with all stakeholders, the Mirarr traditional owners developed the Jabiru Masterplan 2018-2028, which set out a vision for the future of the town after the imminent cessation of its current mining lease function. Towards the end of 2018 the Australian government, the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation negotiated a memorandum of understanding on the future of the Jabiru township, which states all parties commitment to the vision and master plan of the Mirarr traditional owners of Jabiru and to establishing Jabiru as Aboriginal land. That's what this bill will do.

This bill will fulfil the vision of the Mirarr traditional owners to have that land as Aboriginal land, to set up an entity which is controlled by them to which the land can be leased for the purposes of the township. This will provide ongoing surety to all sorts of economic and business interests around Jabiru and make it a central point in western Arnhem Land for services, but, obviously, primarily for its tourism and relationship to Kakadu National Park.

It's important to understand that relationship and to understand that it's a mutually beneficial relationship that will mean in the longer term the whole of the Australian community will be deriving an important benefit from this bill. Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I understand that I'm about to be shut up, and that I can continue at some subsequent time.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.