Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. I have listened very carefully to what my colleagues have said, and I have to say that the government is not convinced by the arguments which have been put forward. To throw some perspective on this, there are two points I would like to make. What are we actually talking about? In the calculations that I have received, the current best estimates involve about 0.01 per cent to 0.02 per cent of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. If, over time, the communities of 100 and more people join the scheme, the amount of Aboriginal land covered by township leases will still be 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land. That is what we are talking about.

People feel passionately about this topic, and I can understand that. People feel very passionately on both sides of this issue. They recognise that there are actions which governments have now got to take to address serious problems of Aboriginal disadvantage. There are actions that government can sensibly take to empower people. This bill is an important bill. To suggest there has not been consultation on this is wrong. There has been extensive consultation on this bill. Some of that consultation may well have gone on for nine years. Ultimately governments have got to be able to take action and make decisions. As somebody who has been in this chamber for a long time and has been a minister for almost 10 years, I know that consultation can be exceedingly helpful. Consultation can bring to the attention of governments issues of which they were not fully aware. But the truth is that, in the end, governments have got to make decisions. Consultation does not mean agreement; it means listening to what people have to say and taking account of their views. At the end of the day, people of good faith can differ. They will weigh up the various pros and cons of an issue and make a decision.

One of the things which struck me about this debate was that there was one issue that simply would not have been clear to many people who listened to the debate, particularly to the contributions of Senator Evans and others. This issue was drawn to our attention in a really excellent speech by Senator Scullion, one senator who has a great deal of local knowledge. The township leasing provisions in this bill are enabling legislation requested by the Northern Territory government. The Labor government of the Northern Territory raised the issue of township leasing, and this bill will enable the legislation of the Northern Territory government to go through. The Labor government of the Northern Territory will draft its own legislation. The Labor government of the Northern Territory will manage the scheme. It is intriguing that not one Labor senator was able to mention that issue. The fact that this came at the request of a Labor government was—to use a metaphor—the elephant in the chamber that no-one dared mention.

Delays will undoubtedly cause the Labor government in the Northern Territory problems. I have not received any letter from Clare Martin saying, ‘Delay the legislation, Senator Kemp.’ I have not received any request from your colleague the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, asking me to delay this bill or to agree to the splitting. But delay, as I understand it, would cause problems for the Labor government in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that that government wants to set up a township leasing entity by December, and any further delays in this bill would prevent that from happening.

Clearly the current provisions are not working for the benefit of Aboriginal people. To be quite frank, I think sticking with the status quo will help nobody. We have checked this bill with the Labor government of the Northern Territory, and they have not asked for this bill to be split. I do not want to labour the obvious political point there, but it does show that there are differing views on this issue. At the end of the day, someone has got to make decisions. Typically, governments have got to make decisions. Governments have got to be able to weigh up the information which has been brought before them.

A number of other points are worth drawing to the attention of the Senate. The issue of the 99-year leases was raised. I think Senator Moore may have indicated that the 99-year leasing scheme was added to the bill just prior to its introduction in this chamber. But I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that this important reform was announced almost one year ago, in October 2005. The 99-year leases are not compulsory acquisitions. The leases are voluntary. No-one is compelled to grant them. Someone—I think it was the social justice commissioner—claimed that 99-year leases will divide Aboriginal land into small parcels and lead to poverty, administrative costs and loss of land. The 99-year leases, I repeat, apply only to townships, not to the vast bulk of Aboriginal land. I think that people reading the Hansard, on reflection, will find a lot of the claims very overstated. The scheme involves the current slow, cumbersome process for getting a lease. It cuts red tape. The traditional owners retain their inalienable title, and other Aboriginal residents in townships who are not traditional owners can get a lease and move forward.

I have no doubt senators spoke with great sincerity in this debate. You only had to be in this chamber and to listen to the debate to understand the concerns that senators have. My advice is that these concerns are misplaced. They are issues that the government took into account, and in the end we decided that the way forward was to introduce this bill. So we will not be willing to delay the implementation of the important matters contained in this bill. We believe that the township leasing scheme will promote opportunities for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to improve their circumstances.

As I said, there will be no compulsion for Aboriginal people to agree to township leases. The scheme is voluntary. As Senator Scullion mentioned, discussions are already under way in relation to a number of township leases. There have been, I repeat, extensive consultations about the measures contained in the bill. The government has agreed to make amendments to the bill in both houses of parliament to take into account the views of stakeholders on the provisions of the bill.

I make this point: there will, of course, be continuing discussions with stakeholders in the course of implementing the measures contained in this bill. In relation to township leases, each lease will require separate and detailed negotiations with the traditional owners. Senator Crossin has indicated that a number of amendments were slipped through late in the piece. The truth is that the measures that Senator Crossin was referring to in her remarks were those that we announced almost a year ago. On that basis, I would have to say that Senator Crossin was simply not correct.

Senator Siewert referred to claims by the Northern Land Council that some township leasing provisions may be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act. This is incorrect. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a special measure under the RDA, and parliament can amend special measures without being contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act. In addition—I repeat this, Senator Siewert—the township leasing scheme is voluntary, so those who do not wish to participate are not required to do so.

Senator Evans made what I thought was an uncharacteristic comment. Senator Evans frequently, but not always, seeks to take the high ground in debates. He said that some amendments which seemed to him to be unfair were rushed into the chamber and put undue pressure on the Labor Party. The advice I have is that the amendments we are putting today are minor and technical, apart from the removal of the five per cent rental cap which was announced some time ago. I know that Senator Evans would be mortified if I suggested that it was a cheap shot on his part; therefore, I will not say that. I certainly do not wish to mortify Senator Evans, but I do say that what he said was not correct.

Senator Crossin made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I invite her to re-read in the Hansard what she said. I suspect that the passion of Senator Crossin’s speech may have led her down paths where she did not want to go. Senator Crossin said that—and I am sure I am not misquoting her—Aboriginal people do not really want to own their own homes. Of course, she was making a general statement. Frankly, I do not think she could claim that she was speaking on behalf of all Indigenous people. There will be a variety of views amongst Indigenous people, as there are in the wider community. She launched a very emotional attack about Aboriginal land generally, and I think that Senator Crossin forgot that what we were talking about was the townships. As I said, the most generous forecast about the impact of this bill on Aboriginal land is: if, over time, all communities of 100 or more people were to join the scheme, the amount of Aboriginal land covered by township leases would still be 0.1 to 0.2 per cent.

Her emotional attack was, I have to say again, misleading. When we are talking about townships, of course, many of the people there are not traditional owners. Traditional owners will choose whether to agree or not to agree to a township lease. Senator Crossin also talked—very misleadingly, I think—about the government taking away property rights. Most residents of townships are not traditional owners. They are other Aboriginal people who currently do not have property rights in the area. The township leasing scheme will allow traditional owners to give these people property rights.

The debate, when you go into it, is far more complex than some of the statements which were made by members of the Labor Party, the Greens and the Democrats. Everyone wants to see what we can do to sensibly address Aboriginal disadvantage. I think it is the time for action. It is not the time for further delays. It is not the time to suggest that every consultation has got to amount to an agreement before it can move forward. Of course this government should listen to people and of course it does. One of the reasons why the government have been able to remain in office is that we are a consultative government and we are prepared to listen to people. The government will not be supporting the motion moved by Senator Evans.