Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

It is interesting the way language is twisted, as it is so often around this place, and that somehow or other this bill can be perceived as not removing a right. I congratulate Senator Kemp for his creative use of the English language, but it is blatantly obvious that what is being removed is a right. That is why the Democrats support these particular amendments.

As was made clear earlier on, this was obviously done without even bothering to consult directly with the people who would be affected, and by just notifying the land council, according to what the minister said earlier on in this debate. The minister had a bit of a shot at another contributor in this debate for suggesting consultation always means reaching agreement. That is certainly not what my view of consultation is, although, when it comes to law affecting the property rights of Indigenous Australians, getting their informed consent was supposed to be something the Australian government had committed to doing. Part of what the federal government says is their honest approach towards Indigenous Australians when dealing with policy matters that affect their land rights is meant to be to get their informed consent. Clearly, that does not apply anymore, and it is good to finally have that on the record.

One of the reasons I repeat some matters—much to the minister’s boredom—is because he refuses to respond to the concerns that are raised. I suppose that reflects this government’s approach to consultation, which is basically to just tell people what the government have decided to do. According to the evidence given to the Senate committee inquiry, that was the ‘consultative’ approach, so-called, with regard to some of the new ideas they came up with towards the end of last year. They went along and told the land councils what the government were doing. That is all they did and that was their idea of consultation. They did not even see the need to talk to traditional owners directly.

So by the minister’s own words, I guess, we finally have a clear indication that the idea of seeking the consent of Indigenous people is not part of the government’s policy. If it is not forthcoming, bad luck; they will just do what they want to anyway. Then they come up with the extraordinary idea that no rights are being removed along the way. It is bit like all those people volunteering to go back to Afghanistan, I suppose.

The Democrats support these amendments. I think that they are particularly important ones. It is worth noting, and it is appropriate to point out, the Northern Territory government’s position—the Northern Territory Labor government’s position, as the minister keeps pointing out. Indeed, I was very disappointed by the response of the Northern Territory Labor government’s representatives at the Senate committee hearing into the whole legislation but particularly this part of it. The Northern Territory government representatives made it quite clear that they did not like the prospect of Aboriginal people being able to claim or have rights over the intertidal zones and they did not like the idea of them getting any economic opportunity out of it. One of the representatives said that it was not so much that the NT government did not support economic development in Aboriginal communities but that they saw this not as economic development but rather the opportunity for rent seeking. What a terrible thing! Imagine rent seeking from your own land. It seems to be appropriate for everybody else in the community but, when an opportunity arises for Aboriginal people to have title over a particular piece of land and then seek to get economic gain out of it, then that is inappropriate because it might impact on another industry or cost the Territory government. That was in response to questioning from Senate Moore and it quite clearly demonstrated the NT government’s view that economic advantage is not favoured by the NT government.

We have heard the rhetoric that these changes are about increasing economic opportunities for Aboriginal people, giving them more incentives and chances to get more advancement because land rights have not worked well enough to give them economic opportunity. But, when you look at the detail in the legislation, things are being taken out that would have provided economic opportunity for Aboriginal people. The legislation is going in the opposite direction to what the Commonwealth government and the NT government say it is about. The minister has repeated ad nauseam—as ad nauseam as some of the things that I have repeated—that the position of the Northern Territory government on this is almost the same as theirs. They are almost equally culpable. It has been very disappointing. It seems like a traditional approach perhaps from the NT government of both sides. I guess it is just the nature of governments that they want to have control and they do not like other people having it. That is what this legislation does in so many parts: it takes control away from Indigenous people and, where the opportunity arises, it gives more power to governments.