Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Before the report is adopted, it is worth commenting on two matters, but I only want to go to one. What we have in this is a process of the Selection of Bills Committee which provides the opportunity for bills to be referred to committees, to be examined by senators and for reports to be prepared and tabled in parliament. When the committee does not reach agreement with respect to bills to be referred then they are usually listed in the committee report. Two such committee bills are the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 and the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. That means the committee did not come to a conclusion about the referral to a Senate committee with respect to those two bills. In respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007, it is incumbent on the government in that instance to say why it should not go to a committee if there was a reference for it to go to a committee.

The statement by the government for the reasons of urgency with respect to that bill is this: timing is critical to allow Indigenous land tenure reform in the Northern Territory to proceed. Without more, the government needs to justify why it needs to pass the bill in the two weeks so it cannot go to a committee, so it cannot be considered, so you cannot have the opportunity of having the relevant stakeholders involved in the process. Of course what the reference provides for by the relevant senators is to consider the merits of a township leasing model, particularly the entity holding the land lease. It would seem that the Northern Territory land councils and other relevant parties should have been provided with an opportunity to have input into that process and to consider the merits of the various models, particularly the entity holding the land lease. That would be the relevant way, unless there were significant reasons as to why that bill could not go to a committee and be dealt with in August, as other bills are.

Of course, it now really is incumbent on this government to provide those cogent reasons. Simply stating that timing is critical to allow Indigenous land tenure reform in the Northern Territory to proceed is not sufficient reason in itself. It is a statement; it does not provide the timing. What timing is critical? Are there agreements pending? Have parties reached agreement and are now awaiting signatures? That would be helpful to know otherwise it will be assumed that this is just a bland statement without substance. It would be necessary, if the government did need the bill, to be able to at least put that case.