Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. It is with some sadness that I have listened carefully to the contributions of those opposite. It saddens me that the only interpretation that they can make on every aspect of this bill is that there is some sort of a mischief in government to go out there and upset Aboriginal people. We have heard from the other side about the creation of violence in the communities. To say that this is some sort of a conspiracy runs in the face of the facts that most people, and certainly all the Aboriginal people who have spoken to me, put to the matter. It is very sad that those opposite have obviously not consulted widely, because, in my experience of living in and around Indigenous communities for well over 20 years, the changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act proposed in this place today simply reflect the aspirations of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal communities.

The Howard government has three fundamental approaches to economic development. We want to grow the economy, lock in prosperity and build for the future. That vision of this government is in an Australia-wide context and it should extend to every Australian. Unfortunately, many of my constituents who live on Aboriginal land have not been part of this economy. They have been isolated from the mainstream economy and face a number of impediments, in the Northern Territory particularly, primarily to do with education, housing, unemployment and, of course, as we have heard with sadness, the lack of services and of a capacity for law and order in many Indigenous communities. Clearly, the Northern Territory government is not providing the sorts of services and the sort of environment for safety that those first Australians deserve.

There is another important impediment to the development of the economy of this country—particularly to the benefits to be gained by Indigenous people who live in the Northern Territory—which is, of course, the Aboriginal land rights act. The principal reason that we are here today is to make some amendments to an act that allow people to participate in the economy that all other Australians enjoy. People have said that it is a good act. It is 30 years old; it has to be a good act. Old acts are good acts. I do not know where they got that from—they have dug it up from somewhere—but in this place we normally know that times change, and 30 years is an awfully long time. It is out of date, it is paternalistic and it needs to be updated. Some 30 years ago, as part of that act, we set up structures and processes that, instead of developing economies and assisting Indigenous people in developing economies, have been impediments to mining, have dumbed down economic activity, have denied local decision making and have disenfranchised many Indigenous people in the townships and deprived them of being able to make choices in life that so many take for granted.

This is the fundamental process under which we are looking at this legislation. The fundamental plank of the amendments is about choice. Nothing that we are proposing is being imposed. We are providing for the locals to have more say. If you want to buy a house in the townships at the moment, you cannot. You will have to go outside of the community if that is your wish. Senator Crossin said in this place that we should not be able to do this, because people on low incomes cannot afford a house. I am not sure about Senator Crossin’s particular arrangements, but I assume that she owns or is buying a house, as are many like her. There are, of course, people in Darwin who cannot afford to buy a house and are renting. But just because there are people in Darwin who are renting does not mean that we should not provide the environment and the legislative framework for people to buy their own houses. It is absolute paternalism at its very worst.

People say that they are on low incomes, but some people in these communities are employed. Through Indigenous Business Australia we have the Home Ownership on Indigenous Land Program so that a family on CDEP income can in fact buy a house. If those opposite had sat down with Indigenous people for a long time, they would have found out that it is a simple aspiration of every Australian that is shared by Indigenous Australians who live on their land. Just like us, their aspiration is to own their own house, not only for themselves but to pass it on as a legacy to their children as property so that through each generation there is an accumulation of wealth. It is something that clearly has not happened in those communities. Again, it is typical Labor paternalism, an ideological lockdown and a lowest common denominator approach.

All we are trying to do is give local people a say over their own lives, and I cannot understand what is wrong with that. I cannot understand why this government is being attacked over trying to provide choice. I do not understand what is wrong with devolving decision making to local people. The land councils support it. Perhaps those opposite should have better communications with the land councils, because they certainly support it. This legislation gives traditional owners the right to decide the future of their townships and to look after the rights of their local residents, who are not all traditional owners. I do not understand what is wrong with that either. Senator O’Brien stood up in this place and painted a picture of violence and of traditional owners somehow being disenfranchised. Obviously, he either has not read the legislation or has not paid attention to the process.

A lot has been said today about consultation. ‘Let’s have a proper consultation,’ says Senator O’Brien. When he says that the government is rushing headlong and jamming this legislation through the parliament, I am almost speechless about this misrepresentation of the facts. I will go through a couple of the processes in this consultation, and I am sure that what Senator O’Brien is really saying is: ‘Let’s delay action. Let’s delay Indigenous Australians getting access to the same sorts of rights to own their house as every other Australian has.’

I will briefly run through the consultation process. In July of 1997, Senator Heron announced a review of the Aboriginal land rights acts and their terms of reference. In October 1997, Mr Reeves was appointed to conduct the review. In November 1997 an issues paper was circulated, including public hearings in 22 communities with 98 written submissions received. In August 1998 there were the findings of the Reeves report. In December 1998 the minister referred the Reeves report to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry, with 31 public hearings and 72 written submissions between March and June of 1999. The House of Representatives standing committee report was tabled in parliament in August 1999. In January of 1999 the ATSIC commissioned a national competition policy review of the mining provisions of the act. This included written submissions, statistical surveys and meetings with major stakeholders. The draft report was circulated to major stakeholders for comment. The report was then released publicly in August. Early in 2002, Minister Ruddock commenced a new round of consultation meetings with land councils, the Northern Territory government, the mining industry and other stakeholders.

I was very pleased to participate in many of those meetings. They were comprehensive meetings. They certainly did not reflect any of the garbage that I am hearing from the other side. In April 2002, the minister released an options paper to all major stakeholders, and pretty much all of them responded pretty quickly. In June 2003, joint land councils and the Northern Territory government responded. That response was provided to the government. In October, further discussions occurred between the minister and major stakeholders. In 2005, in October, Minister Vanstone announced details of proposed amendments. The opposition was briefed by the senator’s office and by officials. The material was posted on the minister’s website. Detailed media releases and brochures were prepared, and they were distributed widely. On 25 October the land councils, the Northern Territory government and other stakeholders were briefed on the township leasing proposal. The minister’s senior adviser visited the Northern Territory to brief land councils and the Northern Territory government on all the proposed amendments.

On 1 December 2005 the draft legislation on township leasing was provided to the Northern Territory government. On 2 December the same year, the department had a teleconference with the Central Land Council on all the issues. On 30 March a summary paper on reforms was provided to land councils. On 31 March, draft legislation on exploration and mining leasing was provided to the Northern Territory government officials. Early in April the department met with the Northern Land Council, the Tiwi council, the Central Land Council and the Anindilyakwa Land Council in a teleconference. By April, all the comments were received from all the land councils. On 15 May comments were received from the Northern Territory government, and on 4 June comments were received from the Northern Territory government on the township.

People think that the Commonwealth government should sit down under the tree with every single stakeholder and talk to them. It is just a nonsense. We rely on the very good work on the land councils to consult on our behalf with Aboriginal people. That is their principal role: to manage the land, provide advice and consult with Aboriginal people. They have done a very good job in this, and that list does not seem to me to be a comprehensive failure of consultation. In fact, I would say that it demonstrates quite clearly that the furphy that those opposite are putting forward—that we have not spoken to Aboriginal people—is an absolute lie. It is absolute rubbish, and should not be supported.

After the announcement last year, Senator Evans in his media release of 18 November said:

Labor is pleased that the package of amendments to the NT Land Rights Act were finally announced by Senator Vanstone...

The mining industry, represented by the Minerals Council, said at the time that it supported the package announced by Senator Vanstone. It said:

Though these reforms have been a long time in gestation, the process of consultation between interested parties has been a critical and productive element to the reforms announced by the Government.

Again, more acclaim for the consultation process, how widely we have consulted and how successful and forensic it has been. I cannot understand that those on the other side are saying: ‘Well, it’s not right and it’s not good. We don’t support it.’ I know the Northern Land Council supports the package. The Northern Land Council has been very supportive of the township reforms and has undertaken a very responsible approach to the permit issues. I have to say, from a personal point of view, that at one time I was inclined to pursue the permit system further than the government wished. It was my wish, originally, to ensure that the media had full access to these communities inside the permit system. But I have been convinced by the activities of the Northern Land Council that it is responsible enough to ensure that the media have access, without any prescriptive legislation to ensure the permit system gives them access. I will be continuing to watch that space, but it is because of the activities of the Northern Land Council and its responsible approach to these matters that I have decided not to pursue that matter.

Let us go through some facts. I know we have had a lot of stuff from the other side—doom and gloom and saying the world is going to fall in—but these are, simply, good amendments. This is good legislation that provides for the future aspirations of Indigenous Territorians. The 99-year leasing for townships was put forward by the Northern Territory Labor government, and it is funny to see those people on the other side saying that they are all part of the Labor Party. All you have to do is pick up the phone and ring Clare, and she will probably straighten you out on it.

There was a bit of an issue about the five per cent cap of the rentals. The Northern Land Council talked to us at length about that. We have made changes and amendments to ensure that we have reflected their concerns. There is no longer a cap. This whole process is voluntary, and in Nguiu the consultation is under way with the support of the Tiwi Land Council. It is very interesting; when I was last there they were reflecting that some of the traditional owners had in times past visited Lord Melville. They were telling me how Lord Melville’s land spread for so far. They had some industry on it, other people had sheep and cattle, and it was all going very well. The Tiwis from Melville Island asked Lord Melville, ‘What is the secret?’ He said, ‘Never sell your land.’ They understood that. They asked, ‘How do you get all these people?’ And he answered: ‘I lease it. Never sell your land; make sure you lease your land.’ In this speech by traditional owners, they were telling me that what the government are intending to do in these amendments is exactly what they want. It is common sense, and they want to be part of the mainstream economy.

Senator Stephens brought up the issue of Ms Bowden. It was to do with the Australian Property Institute. She had apparently written to the minister for some reason or another to say this was going to be a compulsory acquisition. Let me make this clear: the headleasing arrangement is a voluntary arrangement. The framework we are putting in place simply allows the process to happen.

There are some issues associated with the creation of new land councils. I think it is a bit misleading to say ‘the creation of new land councils’. Yes, the legislation provides for the devolution of some responsibilities, not the devolution of all the responsibilities of a land council. We have already talked about plebiscites. The government previously used the term ‘substantial majority’, and all our feedback said: ‘We need some clarification. What does “substantial majority” mean?’ We have defined it as 55 per cent. Other senators on the other side think that is a bit low. I would have thought that we in this place would normally consider that to be a landslide, or some other name. We think that 55 per cent is very reasonable and very fair.

Some senators, including Senator O’Brien, have suggested that we restrict this to traditional owners only. This is the sort of selective democracy that we are gaining on the other side. We need to understand that the land councils are meant to represent all Indigenous people on Aboriginal land, not just the traditional owners. They understand that very clearly. Senator O’Brien’s assertion that this would cause outbreaks of violence is, I think, really off with the fairies. I certainly have not had any indications of that level of negativity on this matter. There have been allegations of bribery. There has been misinformation going around that we are going to threaten to stop basic services, education and housing if people do not sign up to a lease. That is absolute irresponsible nonsense.

This bill is the result of nine years of consultation and four separate reports. I have gone through the most comprehensive consultation list, and I would say that it would be very rare for any piece of legislation to have more than nine years of consultation and such a comprehensive process. The bulk of the recommendations in the bill have been drawn from a joint submission of the land councils who represent the traditional owners, the people of the Northern Territory, and the Northern Territory government. That is right: the Labor government in the Northern Territory—Aboriginal land councils and the Labor government in the Northern Territory. The principle of the township leasing program is based on a submission from the Northern Territory government.

This legislation seeks to provide ministerial power to override land council decisions, not to delegate. It simply offers natural justice for any aggrieved party in the arrangements. It simply provides the capacity for the minister to review land council decisions and to determine if a decision is a reasonable one. Frankly, I do not expect the minister to very often come down on the side of anyone other than the land councils. It would be in circumstances where somebody says, ‘We would like to devolve the process of saying “I would like to negotiate about a mining lease.”’ The land council might quite reasonably say, ‘We don’t think that you have the resources or the capacity or the competence to do that. It is quite a complex matter. You will need some legal advice. We do not think you are ready yet to have that.’ The plaintiffs can then say, ‘Look, Minister, we think we can do it.’ The minister can look at it, and all he will look at is whether or not the land council behaved reasonably. It is just about natural justice.

With respect to the removal of the 40 per cent funding guarantee, this bill provides for outcome based funding—the same as the rest of Australia. Outcome based funding is exactly what it is about. Any organisation goes towards outcome based funding. The land councils support it. They want to be held accountable for what they do, and they want to be funded on the basis of what they achieve. It is absolutely anachronistic. It has got to go.

This legislation also seeks to alter the administration of the Aboriginals Benefit Account and the composition of the advisory board. The royalty associations are being made more transparent by being required to report on the purposes for which payments are made. I think that is going to be a great thing for Indigenous people, and it will ensure that all Aboriginal people benefit, not just a few.

With respect to intertidal zones not contiguous with the coast, these are issues that I have had personal dealings with for many years. To understand the process, these are only the areas that are adjacent to pastoral leases. They have been claimed simply because they are claimable under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. So if you are a pastoralist, you cannot have a barge come up over the low-water mark and unload cattle without going through the whole process of saying that you are using the land. It is an absolutely ridiculous process to have to go through.

We have been able to provide more choices for local people and a prospect for real market economy without changing the fundamentals of the act, which is inalienable freehold title and the traditional owners’ right of veto. Those are being maintained, they are fundamentals of the act and they are not being amended.

The choices now available will allow Aboriginal people to grow their economy, locking in prosperity through a greater number of benefits from this growth. They will allow traditional owners and other people on Aboriginal land to build a better future and to share in an economy that all Australians are benefiting from. I can see no reason why we should not support these amendments to support the prosperity of Indigenous people. An editorial in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald stated:

The amendments will never fix every problem or make everyone a winner. But if they can help even some communities to help themselves, they will be worthwhile.

Clearly, this bill will help many communities to help themselves. As such, it is far more than worth while; it is absolutely vital. The time for talking is over. Indigenous Territorians need action. By bringing in these changes, we can offer them a better future. I commend the legislation to this house.