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

I do not want to delay the Senate on this particular matter other than to say that I know that Senator Kemp looks to put the best light on it. I think that it is also true that he would remember that I made the key point: the government had received advice that the system was not going to work unless they agreed to this concession. The hard-edged opinion in the Northern Territory was that, on the basis that you set it up, you would not be able to sell it to anybody and that you needed to make some concessions to sell it to a few people. On the basis of that rather pragmatic advice you had a change of heart on the principle at stake.

I do not care why you did it but I would not want you to get away with the suggestion that there was some broad consultation and that somehow that you had been listening to people who agree with you. I would be happy for you to name the people who agree with you, because they certainly did not come before the Senate committee inquiry. I know that you will want to fall back on the Northern Territory government because, quite frankly, that was the only submission that was vaguely supportive, and I understand why. The point is that, if you had been consulting more widely, you would have found that there was not a great deal of support out there among those groups that took an interest and made a submission on the bill, including the Law Council and the Minerals Council, not just your usual suspects.

So I think that the government has seen an opportunity to remove the cap and perhaps make the proposition more saleable. But I would also point out that it was not a conclusion that the government came to when they debated it in the House of Representatives. You can characterise it as listening of late to later and better advice or you could attribute it to making policy on the run, making it up as you go and trying to fix up obvious deficiencies in a scheme. Had it been debated and discussed with the parties who have the most interest in these matters, you may not have had to do it on the run. There are two substantial amendments which we think improve an otherwise difficult proposition, and this is one of them. But I would not want the characterisation that Senator Kemp put on it to go unchallenged. I think that we all know it was done because it is hoped that this will make it more easily agreed to by various Indigenous communities. It is an improvement, but I still have fundamental problems with the structure of the leasing arrangement and the loss of Indigenous control over their land that is envisaged in that arrangement. But, because of the lateness of the government coming to that position, I understand that the bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives so that they can reconsider the merits of that particular proposition.