Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi said 'Say it in Greek'. I think that would just make things worse, Senator Bernardi! Stephen Leonard who made a submission for and on behalf of the Muckaty traditional owners emphasised the importance of this document. He said this:

In 1997, after hearing years of tested evidence in a transparent and objective tribunal framework, the Aboriginal Land Commission found that there was clearly joint and interconnected 'ownership' between the five main groups in the Muckaty Land Trust where dreaming overlapped. This was a core reason why a single Land Trust was granted. Furthermore the Report clearly indicated that the nominated site was jointly 'owned' by at least 3 to 5 groups …

The current process isolates a small number of people as exclusive owners of a patch of land within the trust. This determination has been made through a secret anthropology report commissioned by the Northern Land Council. I think the Northern Land Council has a lot of explaining to do in relation to its behaviour with respect to this. I think that the Northern Land Council ought to be subject to a lot more scrutiny in this and other decisions. It is an area of deep concern to me that the Northern Land Council has taken the action that it has. The Northern Land Council rests its entire case on this document but refuses to reveal it, even to other members of the Muckaty Land Trust, whose country concerns and family names are likely cited. The documents recently found in the National Archives further underline how far at odds the Northern Land Council's advice is with the Land Commissioner's findings. What has the Northern Land Council got to hide here? What deal has been done to reach the decision that has been reached? Consent was purportedly given, but in fact a whole range of other groups have not been consulted in relation to this. I think it is important that the Northern Land Council come clean and disclose those documents before this matter is considered any further. I think it is important that the Northern Land Council be subject to rigorous scrutiny before this matter is considered further. The Northern Land Council is a beneficiary of significant public moneys. I think its behaviour in this case leaves a lot to be desired, and it leaves many unanswered questions.

The Senate committee was not provided with the Northern Land Council's anthro­pology report, its written submission or the transcripts of evidence from the Muckaty land claim—in other words, the documents recently found in the National Archives. Nor was the committee allowed to see the so-called new 2007 anthropology report which concluded that the Lauders were the exclusive traditional owners of the nominated site, because, as the Northern Land Council told the committee, the report contained culturally sensitive information. As such, the Senate committee had to rely on what it was told. This is not adequate. It reeks of a bungled process; it reeks of secrecy; it reeks of a complete failure of appropriate due process, fairness and natural justice. We are being asked to vote on a bill whose genesis is fundamentally flawed.

Further to that, reading the 1993 Northern Land Council anthropology report from the Muckaty land claim, which was submitted by the Northern Land Council to Justice Gray, the authors could not be more clear in asserting that the three Napa family groups 'shared the same sites' and had 'commonality of land interests' on Muckaty Station, although each group had different emphases for land off Muckaty Station. Justice Gray accepted that in his report. The Senate committee was not told of the evidence in the Muckaty land claim from Geoffrey Lauder and the other senior men that the Karakara was a Yapa Yapa aka Japurla Japurla site, nor was it told that Justice Gray accepted this evidence and specifically identified Karakara as a Yapa Yapa dreaming site in his report.

In the circumstances, and in view of the trenchant opposition of Dick Foster and other non-Lauder Ngapa leaders to the Muckaty site nomination, the authors of the NLC submission to the Senate—in which the Muckaty land claim evidence and the conclusions of Justice Gray were literally turned on their head—have an awful lot of explaining to do. It has been a deeply flawed process, a process which we ought not to be part of. I understand from Senator Ludlam that the mediation for the Federal Court matter is due to proceed in just two months time—sometime in August. That is only eight weeks away. What is the rush? Why won't we let the Federal Court do its work? Why are we insisting on dealing with a piece of legislation where there is already a process in place—that is, Federal Court litigation—so that those matters can be fairly dealt with under the rules of discovery, under the court processes and rules of procedure of the Federal Court, so that we can get to the truth of this?

I am deeply suspicious of the processes involving the Northern Land Council. There are too many unanswered questions. There are too many inadequate explanations given by the Northern Land Council. I think it is fair to say that this Muckaty plan is a bad deal, and it is important that we do not allow it to be a done deal.

In the committee stages of this bill, I would like to ask my friends, my colleagues in the coalition: in terms of getting the genuine consent of the traditional owners, how is this different from the coalition's wild rivers bill? I believe that is a noble piece of legislation because it is doing the right thing by Indigenous people and treating them with respect. But here I think we are not doing the right thing by traditional owners. These are not just the broad assertions of some owners saying, 'You haven't consulted me.' They have actually taken this a step further. They have actually issued proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia because they are so deeply concerned about the fate of process, about the deals that have been done behind people's backs, and about the secrecy on the part of the Northern Land Council. I am not sure how much the Northern Land Council gets in taxpayer funds each year, but I would hazard to say that it is in the millions of dollars. There needs to be some accountability for that organisation in what they do, because they have effectively marginalised some of their own people. They are supposed to be representing them, but they have not done so. The Northern Land Council ought to be held to account for their actions in relation to this.

I am not opposed to the concept of having an appropriate nuclear waste dump. I am not opposed to dealing with this in a way that is fair, reasonable and driven by process. But what we are seeing here is a piece of legislation which will in effect entrench a deeply flawed process, a damaged process, a process which leaves many unanswered questions. For those reasons, I cannot in good conscience support this bill being dealt with at this time. I will be supporting my Greens colleagues in any move to have this legislation adjourned, for this bill to be postponed until the Federal Court has done its work. I think it is shameful if we effectively vote to destroy any legal rights of traditional owners currently before the Federal Court of Australia, and that should be resisted at all costs.