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

I want to raise another matter, but I would, firstly, like to respond to Senator Scullion. I appreciate his contribution. I suppose I share Senator Bartlett’s view, though, that at the end of the day it is always easier to take away Aboriginal land rights. You talk about complexity and you talk about time—and I accept all those arguments; I am sure they are well placed—but often the simple answer is then to deny Indigenous people what otherwise would be their right to the land. It just seems that we too easily fall into that. It does not seem to me that it is beyond the wit of people to negotiate land use agreements. We do it everywhere else. I also do not believe it is beyond the wit of people to resolve some of the complexities. I do not want to labour the point, but it concerns me that this is occurring again without proper procedural fairness. I know the government has the numbers, so I will not delay the matter.

It is interesting to note, though, that some of these claims found as justified by the lands commissioner go back to 2002. If the minister had considered the issues of detriment, one would have thought that he or she would have gotten around to making a decision before 2006. I am interested in why they did not take that step and why they see it as necessary to legislate away those rights. They have the power under the act, as both you and I understand, Senator Scullion, but they have not exercised that power. If someone could help me with that, that would be appreciated.

I want to move on to one of the other provisions contained in the government’s suite of amendments that we are taking as a whole. This provision deals with the question of delegating the power to grant 99-year leases to regional bodies corporate—a handover from the land councils to regional bodies corporate. It comes up in a series of other places. As the Senate would be aware, previously under the act, only powers relating to mining exploration and subleasing were able to be delegated to those regional bodies corporate. It now seems that the government is moving an amendment to allow the bodies corporate to grant 99-year leases as well. I have not heard the justification for that and I have concerns about what it will mean. There is also concern that this will inflame an issue that we are all aware of; that is, the potential conflict between Aboriginal residents on land and traditional owners, the relationships between them, and the fact that owners have rights that perhaps residents do not have over the land. This is a complex and difficult issue.

Through these amendments, the government seeks to allow the potential for a regional body to be in charge of negotiating and gaining consent for a 99-year lease. There has been concern expressed not only by the Northern Land Council but also by the Minerals Council about this whole process. They fear extra litigation and regional disputes might intensify as a result of handing over what has traditionally been a land council role to regional bodies corporate—if you like, diffusing that authority down the chain to organisations that may not be as well resourced or as knowledgeable in how to gain consent from Aboriginal traditional owners. They also have a concern about whether the rights of traditional owners in this process will be protected. Obviously there is also the issue of the expertise of land councils.

One of the issues that the Minerals Council raise is the fact that they want to know who they are dealing with and they want to have certainty. I do not want to put words in their mouth but, in my discussions with the Minerals Council and miners, it would seem that they feel that, after all the debates about native title et cetera, we have got to a position of certainty in dealing with these things and they just want the rules to stay the same so that they can get on with business. They do not want another set of amendments to the native title regime or massive changes that make business more complex. They are happy to deal with the land councils, representing traditional owners, to do business and to know what the rules are.

It seems to me that the government’s amendments will create uncertainty and the capacity for more disputation and potential litigation. It seems to me that this also opens up the power for the minister to force land councils to delegate those functions to regional bodies corporate against their wishes, given the other provisions that relate to ministerial powers. This is an important development—one that I am not convinced of. I would appreciate it if the minister could allay my concerns about these matters. At the moment, I do not see the need for these amendments and I am inclined to oppose them.