Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I will make a few comments in reply on the motion to split the bill. In doing so, I express my disappointment that the government has not been able to see its way clear to agreeing to what I think is a very reasonable request to try to build some bipartisanship and some sense of trust on these issues before proceeding.

As we have seen from the debate in recent weeks, there is broad community support for the measure which we are moving today—not only from the other political parties in the chamber but also from Reconciliation Australia and from land councils, traditional owners and other people who take a keen interest in these issues and who care for the rights of Indigenous people and want to see progress made on economic development.

Early on, the government was keen to paint this debate as pro- or anti-economic development. I thank Senator Kemp for not seeking to perpetuate that myth. I think we have had quite a reasonable debate on these issues, and the point that I tried to make in my earlier contribution is that I do not think that people are that far apart on these issues. There does need to be some progress on township leasing and Indigenous land in the Northern Territory; in fact, a number of traditional owner groups have been working on such proposals for some time. It is the case that the Northern Territory Labor government is keen to make progress towards a policy of normalisation and town development in those communities. I have no difficulty with that. I make the point that Labor in this chamber and Labor federally will make their own judgements, and that does not mean that we always agree completely with state Labor governments. I have no difficulty in saying on the record that, on this occasion, there is some minor difference of emphasis over these issues.

What I want to say in summing up this debate is that essentially this is a question of respect: whether one proceeds with measures on Aboriginal land in a manner which provides respect to the traditional owners. I think their view, my view and the view of many people who take an interest in Indigenous affairs is that the government has not proceeded in a way that treats those people with respect. Again, it is a classic case of a government saying: ‘We know what’s right for you. We’re going to do things to you rather than do things with you.’ It has not worked in the past. I do not think it will work on this occasion, and it is the wrong approach. Whatever happens with these particular amendments—I accept that they are not the be-all and end-all of debate on Indigenous affairs in this country—it is the style, the lack of respect shown to Indigenous landowners, that will leave a lasting impression. It will leave attitudes that will persist for many years. It will disappoint Aboriginal people in the way they are treated by government. I think they will be disappointed in the way this parliament has not been able to assist them in this measure.

I only hoped that the government and/or some of its backbenchers might have seen fit to see that the path they were going down was not the path by which to proceed. It appears that, unfortunately, that is not the case and we will proceed with the bill today. The government has a lot of legislative time on its hands because the three days that were set aside for the migration bill are now available for other matters. Maybe we will debate this for three or four days just to keep Senator Kemp on his mettle. I do think it is a shame that we have not been able to do better and that the government has not seen fit to listen to the advice of the many people who take an interest in this, in particular the views of the traditional owners. At the end of the day, people need to understand that this bill seeks to deal with Indigenous people’s property rights, and the government has not consulted with them sufficiently or properly about that.

Senator Kemp may or may not be right that it only represents 0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, but it is the land on which Indigenous people live. Senator Kemp, it is their land that you seek to interfere with. It is their land, on which they live. I suspect that if I came to your suburban block in Melbourne and suggested to you that I was going to rearrange the arrangements by which you are allowed to own and enjoy your household and its land—I am assuming you are not living in a flat—you would expect me to treat you with respect and to consult with you widely. And I think you would expect to have some say over what the outcome was.