Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Next week we celebrate the anniversary of one of the most remembered and historic moments in the history of this country. It will be 40 years ago, on 16 August 1975, that Gough Whitlam poured a handful of soil from the Daguragu land into the outstretched palm of Vincent Lingiari in a gesture signifying the handing back of 3,236 square kilometres of ancestral land and the final chapter in the Gurindjis’ nine-year fight. The official record of this significant gesture was the drafting under the Whitlam government of the land rights legislation finally passed by the Fraser government.

Let me spend a moment looking at the history of the legislation, which was the culmination of the royal commission conducted by Justice Woodward. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 before us today would make the most significant and monumental changes in the history of the legislation’s existence. The legislation was designed and has always been seen as an instrument to preserve and strengthen Aboriginal interests in rights over the land and ensure that these interests are not taken away without consent. After review by Justice Toohey in 1983 and amendment as a result, we did not see any other attempt to change the fundamental intent of this legislation until the arrival of the Howard government.

John Reeves QC was commissioned to undertake a further review of this act in 1997, and the controversy of his report culminated in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs considering his recommendations and the implications of these for change. The report that the House of Representatives committee wrote is there for the history books and should be read by anyone who has an interest in this legislation. The unanimous recommendations—that is, recommendations supported by government members and opposition members in this building—especially the first of these recommendations in the report Unlocking the future, say that this act should not be amended without the traditional owners in the Northern Territory understanding the nature and purpose of these changes and giving their consent and, further, that any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected should be consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views.

That thought was good enough for government members in the House of Representatives to sign up to in 1998-99. It is a pity they did not stick to their view when this bill was put through the House of Representatives in June. We have seen all too often of late the arrogance of the government with control of the numbers in both houses and we have seen their preparedness to abuse such control. This is another of those examples.

This legislation has been rammed through with minimal debate, minimal scrutiny and minimal time for any Senate inquiry. We have just heard Senator Humphries admit that the Community Affairs Legislation Committee of this chamber had a grossly inadequate time frame in which to deal with such serious ramifications as this act presents. The government think they know best on all matters and that they do not have to consult, negotiate or debate with anyone except their mates. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 before the Senate chamber today is no exception. As I have travelled around Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, particularly in last six months, I have heard constant complaints that Indigenous people have not been consulted and have not been given time to understand, consult and talk with one another about these major changes.

The Aboriginal land rights act is a very major and important piece of legislation. It is, in fact, fundamental to the future of Indigenous people in terms of promotion of social harmony and stability, and maintaining the spiritual link with the land which gives Indigenous people their very sense of identity and their basis for spiritual beliefs. Any changes should be worked out in very close and full consultation and negotiation with Indigenous people and communities—not thought out using paternalistic ideology by politicians and bureaucrats and then rammed through this parliament in great haste.

Historically, this legislation has had the benefit of being treated in a bipartisan manner. But in the current context of this government and its treatment of Indigenous people we should not be surprised, although very disappointed, with the haste of these changes and the lack of genuine discussion and agreement with the people who will be most affected by them. The existing land rights act has certainly not failed. Under it we can find countless examples of development on Aboriginal land, whether it be mining bauxite at Gove, goldmining in the Tanami, even uranium mining at Kakadu and manganese at Bootu Creek. Then there are examples of tourism at Katherine, Uluru and Kakadu National Park and even the new housing development on the Malpi estate that is being developed in Gove, as I saw only last Friday, and the list goes on.

Under the existing act, Aboriginal people have seen development on their land but in a way in which they can control and in a way that they have come to accept, understand and agree to. This bill proposes major amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976. In summary, these are reforms in relation to mining and exploration provisions, the introduction of the 99-year headleases on Aboriginal land, mechanisms for the creation of new land councils, provisions for the delegation of certain land council functions to incorporated regional groups, new requirements regarding performance and governance of land councils, major change to the funding of land councils and finally, of course, the excision of intertidal zones not contiguous with Aboriginal land.

Everyone except this government—and including the Northern Territory government—agrees that the time allowed to work out and consider these changes is totally inadequate. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee had minimal time to consider this bill and with only one public hearing in Darwin on 21 July—totally inadequate and with not even a chance for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee to get to Alice Springs, let alone to any of the remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory who will be at the very core of the effects of the changes to the legislation.

Even the government members of this committee could not give unqualified support to this bill in the report, supporting the legislation only on the basis of further, ongoing negotiations with affected groups—but after passing the bill. Quite frankly, that is nonsense. If the bill in its present form is not good enough to support then it is not good enough to pass and say that later we will tinker around at the edges and make the changes. If it is not good enough to pass in its current form it should not be passed and then sought to be negotiated and discussed further down the track.

We have seen last minute changes of major proportions being made to this legislation. Even, I understand, the Northern Territory government has only had three days to comment on it. The mining and exploration provisions are seemingly accepted by the key stakeholders such as the Northern Territory government, the land councils and the minerals councils. These were done in consultation over many, many months—not in haste—and Labor can and will support them. However, other parts of this bill give rise to serious cause for concern and amendment or even rejection. Some of the problems include the conditions of the 99-year headlease model, the use of the Aboriginals Benefit Account to fund township surveying and administration of the new entity to hold the headleases, the creation of new land councils and the new requirements on land council performance, accountability and funding methodologies.

Under these changes the land councils are being required to perform and account for funds like few other organisations are expected to do. They have to state their anticipated annual budget and stick to it unless they get ministerial approval to vary it. They are already required to report annually to the federal parliament, as are most other bodies of this nature. It is very unclear to me why they are being asked to do more when this level of accountability is already there and other bodies are not put under such scrutiny.

This bill also makes it possible for the establishment of other land councils and for their powers to be delegated from the existing four land councils. This is nothing more than the implementation of an ideological policy base, and I have not seen such strong opposition against the existing land councils as I have seen in this suggestion. Rather than a genuine attempt to ensure that this act continues to work effectively and in the best interests of Indigenous people, the strength of the larger organisations is not supported by this government. It runs counter to the Commonwealth’s current drive to consolidate services and economies of scale in native title representative bodies and Aboriginal legal services. So on the one hand this government wants to consolidate services to Indigenous people through rep bodies and legal services, and on the other the establishment of this legislation seeks to break up the land councils and larger bodies, abolish their existing strength and effectively create many small land councils and organisations, which will be the end result.

This point was highlighted and disagreed to by the Minerals Council in their submission to the Senate inquiry. If you know anything about the history of this legislation, you would know that this government has seriously got it wrong when even the Minerals Council does not want this change to the legislation, has backed the land councils in suggesting that the current legislation should stand and has urged that this provision not proceed.

All of my Indigenous constituents do not want this at the expense of their culture, and it seems that this government, by the way they are going about things, want to return to an assimilation policy. The establishment of this legislation shows that government members totally lack understanding of and empathy for Indigenous tradition. This bill certainly continues that impression and that trend. Aboriginal people have had minimal input and minimal say in something that will have a major impact on their communities and land councils.

In his submission to the committee, Professor Jon Altman, who is vastly experienced and acknowledged nationally in Indigenous affairs, particularly in the Northern Territory, says that it is his belief that these changes will actually make the amendment objectives, especially with respect to economic development, harder to achieve than under the current laws. He believes headleasing would have been better if trialled first in some communities.

Oxfam Australia, in a letter that I received only yesterday, said that they were one of the many organisations that were prevented from making a submission because of the extremely short time frame for the passage of this legislation. This is very disappointing, as Oxfam Australia undertook research last year to examine the claim by this government that these changes will generate improved economic development and private homeownership. The report, titled Land rights and development reform in remote Australia, found that many of the necessary elements required to promote economic developments are not related to butchering the land rights act and making profound changes to this legislation but to taking action to improve health, housing, education and infrastructure for Indigenous people in their communities.

Mr Daly, the Chair of the NLC, made this point during the Senate inquiry:

We want to be part of the Territory economy ... We want to see our people move forward. We also want our kids to have a decent education and to be able to get decent jobs out on their own traditional lands.

Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and an elder and traditional owner from the Northern Territory, says in his submission that he has serious concerns about the land rights amendments in this bill. He says:

The amendments make significant changes to the existing land rights legislation which has the potential to compromise the rights and interests of Indigenous people living in the Northern Territory.

He states very clearly that he is concerned that these amendments have been made without the full understanding and consent of traditional owners and Indigenous Territorians. He says:

... the consultations with land councils regarding the ALRA amendments did not cover the full provisions of the proposed changes to the legislation.

At the Darwin hearings, Raymattja Marika, a traditional owner from north-east Arnhem Land—and current Northern Territorian of the Year, I might add—said:

While we Yolngu have always known our connection to land and the laws that govern our connection and our rights ... Our struggle was against the mining companies and the federal government that issued the first leases in 1966. Now we are in the same position today—we are still fighting the Commonwealth government.

She went on to say—and I quote these words because I think they are of particular significance:

Land ownership is not something you can play with. You dig our land and you take our land, but that land is our backbone. It is our life source. We invite you to respect that and to understand the value we have on our land and to help us achieve our goals.

We also heard from Mr Wali Wunungmurra, a man who my husband calls ‘brother’ and who was the first person to invite us to become part of an Indigenous family in north-east Arnhem Land. He said that, in the view of the grassroots people he was representing, the present land rights act was working fine and was a workable act that people could now understand. He went on to say:

What I say and what the people who asked me to present the case here to the committee say strongly is that if there are going to be changes made to the act, Aboriginal people would like to be a part of those changes. They are saying that they would like to be making decisions and saying where we should go and how fast we should go. We want to make decisions about the pace and the timing.

I want to make a few comments in conclusion. There are many areas of this legislation that I could spend quite a deal of time criticising and commenting on, but I want to address very quickly the notion that, despite what this government says about the 99-year leases being voluntary, what we have seen in the two or three instances in the Territory is that it is anything but that. On 4 May 2006 a joint press release between Minister Mal Brough and Minister Julie Bishop said:

A secondary boarding school will be built on the Tiwi Islands as part of an historic deal to open the door for home ownership on Aboriginal land.

In this press release there is clearly a connection between the boarding school and homeownership on Indigenous land. There is clearly a link that, if you give up your land for a 99-year lease, we will provide you with a further $10 million towards the construction of a new community managed boarding college on the Tiwi Islands.

After I asked Mr Greer in estimates this year, ‘Is this school funding linked to any other requirements from the Commonwealth?’ he said:

Yes. I think when the minister for Indigenous affairs announced the new initiative on 4 May, he indicated there would be a condition around signing a heads of agreement committing the traditional owners and the government to settle an agreement by the end of year to allow for home ownership and commercial business development over the township of Nguiu.

But when we were in Darwin on 21 July the chair of our committee asked exactly the same question of Mr Stacey from OIPC. Mr Stacey said:

The government has made it clear right from the outset that the arrangements are voluntary.

We went on to ask Mr Daly, the chairman of the NLC, about the condition on Elcho Island that 50 new homes would be provided in return for a 99-year lease. I asked:

If the people on Elcho Island decide not to enter into the 99-year lease, I take it they don’t get the 49 houses, then, that have been promised by Minister Brough?

Mr Daly said:

That is correct. The community leaders out there have been told, ‘If you do not sign up to this community leasing scheme, you will not get the 50 houses that I have promised you.’

And, in a press release on 19 June this year, Mal Brough had this to say:

Around fifty houses will be built and real jobs provided, if the community is safe and signs up to full school attendance, a no-drugs no-violence policy and agree to a 99 year lease to support home ownership and business development opportunities.

Mr Stacey denied that in Darwin, and he said to me:

I think, with all due respect, it is an oversimplification to try and characterise the government as going around saying, ‘Unless you agree to a headlease, you are not getting essential services.’

In that context, he denied that the government is doing that. Who is right here: ministerial press releases or departmental officials from OIPC? But the point I want to make is that the 99-year leases will be anything but voluntary. The track record of this government in those two instances shows that you will only get essential services or services connected with your future if you agree to give up your land. (Time expired)