Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

We heard this morning and yesterday afternoon what the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is all about. It proposes to alter 30-year laws that gave Aborigines control and communal ownership over land in the Northern Territory and established land councils to administer the land. This morning, Senator Crossin, who so strongly represents the constituency most affected by this legislation, has outlined the historic nature of the original land rights bill and the local impacts of the proposed changes to this legislation.

The government majority report of the House of Representatives entitled Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was tabled in the House of Representatives in August 1999, and I note that it is referred to in the explanatory memorandum to this bill. A committee with a majority of government members produced a unanimous report. Recommendation 1, on page 8 of that report, states:

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 ...not be amended without:

• traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent; and
• any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views.

As I said, it was a unanimous report with a government majority.

The bill before the Senate today does not meet that basic test of proper consultation and informed consent of traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory. The report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, tabled out of session, noted the concerns of the committee members and many witnesses about the lack of time for preparing submissions and that the committee had only one day of hearings about the bill, which will have a profound effect on Indigenous communities, and that many of those most affected by the changes in the bill are probably not even aware of its existence.

Professor Jon Altman, Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University, in his submission to the committee, made a critical point:

.. the proposed amendments ... will result in a statutory framework that lacks internal consistency and that will make the meeting of amendment objectives ... less likely than the current framework.

Professor Altman reiterated concerns about the lack of consultation and the explanation of the impacts:

Other parts of the amendment (especially the provisions for head-leasing and then sub-leasing Aboriginal township sites located on Aboriginal land) emanate from quite recent ideas that have not been explained at all to Aboriginal traditional owners, have not been openly negotiated, and that have enormous potential implications for both the workability of ALRA—

the act—

and especially its financial provisions.

He suggested that the proposals should be undertaken under section 19 provisions of ALRA, rather than amending the act. Professor Altman is a highly respected expert in Indigenous issues. His submission raised very serious constitutional issues about the legislation as well as strong economic arguments. He also said in his submission:

... many old laws ... are good laws and statutory change should only be passed ... if it is likely to result in better outcomes for all stakeholders, but primarily Indigenous Australians.

Paragraph 8 of the explanatory memorandum explains the true motives of the Howard government. Under the heading ‘Objectives’, it states:

The principal objectives are to improve access to Aboriginal land for development, especially mining—

That is why we are here today. The current mechanism of negotiating ILUAs, Indigenous land use agreements, with agreed outcomes and opportunities for communities and businesses, is not enough for this government.

Labor oppose this bill because aspects of it are wrong and make it deficient. We believe that the bill should be split. The bill seeks to undermine the principles of self-determination by removing funding for land councils from the Aboriginals Benefit Account and replacing it with a funding formula based on workloads and results—however the minister wants to define those. We support the provisions of the bill that relate to mining and exploration which also have the support of traditional owners and the Northern Territory government.

We share the desire of the people of the Northern Territory for investment. We understand that they want the capacity to develop their resources and want to be consulted about how that may occur so that there is a chance to maximise the return for communities—not just in the form of royalties but, more importantly, in social and economic development. The Indigenous communities want resource development and tourism that create local opportunities for training, employment and enterprise development.

It is time for the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to admit that he is wrong. Indigenous communities are not anti economic development, but they have been alienated by this government. Shared responsibility agreements that make unrealistic demands on unsuspecting communities, the dismal failure of some of the COAG trials, changes to CDEP funding and interference by the Indigenous policy coordination unit—they are all part of this minister’s style. And let us not even go to the minister’s former employee who helped perpetuate a disgraceful hoax on national television.

The best way to achieve development in Australia is by negotiating with people and taking them with you. That is exactly what the act does as it stands right now. Unfortunately, this government wants to diminish the capacity for land councils in the Northern Territory to properly represent their communities, encouraging instead new regional incorporated bodies to which the minister can delegate functions that override the wishes of traditional owners. Writing in the National Indigenous Times on 15 June 2006, Chris Graham had this to say about the bill:

... the government is seeking to wipe out the independence of the NT land councils—to gain control of them. The land councils’ financial resources will now come under the direction of Mal Brough. He will decide the level of funding they receive (if they receive funding at all).

The Minister is also proposing to give himself the power to delegate land council functions to other bodies—bodies he has created and funded.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the land councils are dead. They will no longer do the bidding of traditional owners—they must do the bidding of the government, or they will be abolished.

So what is the intent of the Howard government amendments? They are designed to increase white access to the resource rich lands of the Northern Territory.

The minister has been out there working very hard to try to sell the government’s spin on the bill. I quote him:

The reforms to the Land Rights Act will help create future opportunities for Aboriginal people. These amendments allow for 99 year leases which will make it easier for Indigenous people to own a home or establish a business in Aboriginal townships.

The fact is that the government amendments will actually ensure that traditional owners will forgo their ownership of the land and associated rights to control entry onto their land. That is really what this bill is all about, and tempting Indigenous communities to exchange their land for community housing or facilities is really outrageous. As Senator Crossin said this morning, 99-year leases equate to four generations. Shameful!

To date, the legislation has provided for traditional owners in certain circumstances to refuse consent for mining and other developments on their land—not because they are against development but because they are trying to ensure there is a balance between development and traditional rights in their communities.

The National President of the Australian Property Institute, Ms Marcia Bowden, yesterday wrote to Minister Brough outlining the concerns that the Australian Property Institute has with this bill. In particular, Ms Bowden expressed concern that the bill will disturb compulsory acquisition law and provide for compulsory acquisition of land held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Ms Bowden wrote:

... it is the strong view of the Institute that the compulsory acquisition of property rights, be they held by Indigenous or non-Indigenous holders, should not arise solely to permit a private purpose that cannot be construed as a Government activity. Whilst tenure holders under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 could withhold consent to a proposed lease, such action should not cause compulsory acquisition to arise merely because it frustrates third party private interests.

And there you have it: the government would rather help its mates at the top end of town than give any consideration to long-established compensation law. I call on the minister to respond to the Australian Property Institute’s letter and explain to all Australians—Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—why he is prepared to allow a situation to arise whereby an undesirable private property rights precedent may be created.

We know that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was a direct result of the Woodward royal commission, and several people have spoken in the chamber about its genesis. The Whitlam government drafted the land rights legislation based on Justice Woodward’s report, and the legislation was ultimately passed by the Fraser government. But since the Howard government gained control of both houses of this parliament, we have seen its ideology shine through. It spends its time attacking those areas about which it has a long-held view. The land rights act, for the Prime Minister, is one of those pieces of legislation.

This is very bad public policy. We should be respecting the rights of our Indigenous Australians. We should respect their right to say no. We should respect the fact that there is informed consent in relation to their decision making. We should not have a situation where the land councils have a gun held to their heads by the minister saying to them, ‘If you don’t approve development, we’ll put you out of business.’

This is exactly the reason the land councils have a problem with this legislation. In reality, many Indigenous people want mining in their country, because they see it as the only way to advance themselves and their communities. They are not anti development; they just want to have a say over the development on their land. They want to protect Indigenous assets on the land once a mining lease is entered into; they want clarity about their control of development under the 99-year lease model. To suggest that land councils should be forced to delegate land use functions to small corporations, and as such prioritise scarce resources to them, is unworkable, and will certainly jeopardise development outcomes.

The CDEP program was established in 1977. It is the single biggest employer of Aboriginal people and operates through an Indigenous community organisation, creating a common pool of unemployment benefits that pay unemployed community members to undertake work within that community. In December 2004 the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced planned changes to the CDEP scheme, and in February 2005 he released a discussion paper which was widely criticised for its potential to create job losses and cut costs.

Nearly 18 months later, with the detail of the bill now before us, I wonder whether Minister Andrews can stand by his claims. Last year, he said of Senator McLucas:

The senator is simply wrong in calling the consultation process a ‘sham’ and is misrepresenting the discussion paper in making erroneous claims about job losses and cost cutting.

I also wonder whether the minister read yesterday’s Melbourne Age, in which three traditional owners of country in Arnhem Land were reported as having written an open letter to the Prime Minister and the people of Australia. About the CDEP, they wrote:

Right now the CDEP allows our people, especially our younger people, to work for the money they get, to learn skills and talents that work for both the white community and the Aboriginal community. The Government wants it to work for the dole, but this is a problem. For the dole you must apply for jobs every two weeks or your payments stop. Here there are not very many jobs, so we share the CDEP work so everyone can get paid and all the work can get done. We are concerned that without the CDEP our younger people will go to places such as Darwin to look for work. This will break up families and expose the young to things such as drink and drugs, which are not here at Gunbalanya.

The Howard government continually espouses its family values credentials, yet its dogged ideology continues unabated. We have had the extreme industrial relations legislation, making life more difficult and uncertain for hard-working families. The government refuses to act on rising fuel prices. Last week interest rates rose for the third time since the Prime Minister promised Australia he would keep them at record low levels—due to the cost of bananas, he would have us believe. Now, the Howard government’s ideology seeks to destroy Indigenous families. It is mean, it is cruel and it is bloody-minded.

We heard what the member for Solomon thought about Indigenous communities when he suggested, ‘You do not see a hairdresser, you do not see clothing stores or a McDonald’s or an Irish theme pub.’ What a shame if an Irish theme pub is evidence of economic and cultural vitality! And we had the minister saying, ‘We’re saying to the people: “You’ve been living on what are, for all intents and purposes, little communist enclaves, which means there’s no opportunity for business to flourish and there’s no access to a market economy.”’ What is the answer for this government? It is to transform the CDEP—to encourage the development of microbusinesses without the appropriate structures, processes, training and planning in place—to allow subleasing of Aboriginal townships, to allow access to traditional lands and to adopt a paternalistic approach to land council funding.

This is one of the fundamental problems of the bill. It is further evidence that the government does not take Indigenous Australians seriously. It is obvious the minister has never read the words of Justice Woodward, and I suggest that he does so. If he did he would see that his world view is not only wrong but also not even close to where Indigenous Australians see themselves. They are concerned about involving themselves in the market economy in some way. Indigenous Australians aspire to having roofs over their heads and their children having access to education and health services. Indigenous Australians want access to work opportunities. Indigenous Australians want these things just like the rest of us.

Labor supports any Australian who aspires to purchase their own home. However, this bill is not about homeownership; it is about housing provision and the regularisation of the arrangement between housing providers and traditional owners. Across Australia Indigenous Australians face a chronic housing shortage. Nationally the housing shortfall is around $3 billion. This housing shortage is reflective of the level of poverty being suffered by Aboriginal Australians, as well as poor health, poor education and the lack of employment opportunities.

Recently the Northern Territory government proposed a new way of addressing the housing crisis on Aboriginal communities, involving community, government and private sector finance. I applaud the Northern Territory Chief Minister for this initiative. There needs to be a genuine partnership between government, the private sector and Aboriginal communities if we are ever to address the chronic shortage of Indigenous housing. But the Howard government’s proposals will not attain that objective, either. The government should be looking at models that do not require traditional owners giving up their right to control commercial development on their land and that would provide ample capacity for dealing in residential property.

The haste with which this legislation has been rushed through is evidenced by the suite of amendments proposed by the government and circulated yesterday afternoon. This will be a function of the new Senate majority of this government: legislate in haste and amend as each unforseen consequence is identified—an unwieldy and intellectually lazy approach to legislation.

Finally, I commend the substantive amendment moved in this place by Senator Evans that has the effect of splitting the bill. If the Howard government is serious about its practical reconciliation agenda then it can afford to acknowledge that this bill has been contrived in haste and accept these amendments that are about ensuring that Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, as traditional custodians of their country, are afforded the same rights as everyone else.