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

I am not inclined to support this amendment, because I am not sure that I understand it or that it adds to the operation of the act. To say that Labor has been consistently arguing the question of 99-year leases et cetera should be dealt with separately. This debate is about the emergency intervention and should not be covering issues of broader land management. I think that issue has been accepted by the government generally. The legislation does not deal with land issues, in general terms, beyond the five-year lease.

I understand that what is occurring here is that the government has made provision for a land trust to negotiate a longer lease while their five-year lease is in place. It effectively says, ‘Despite the fact that we are taking control of your land, if you want to do something more long-term, your right to do that is not usurped by the five-year lease.’ So, I have to try to understand why a Democrat amendment would seek to unsettle a provision that provides that opportunity to a land trust—that is, to the Aboriginal owners of the land—and instead seeks to insert a committee, partly made up of whitefellas, to tell them whether or not they can enter into a lease of their land. It seems to me to be counterproductive to everything the Democrats and I argue.

Progress reported.