Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024. As an overview, the bill concerns an area of vacant Crown land near the Aboriginal community of Canteen Creek in the Barkly area of the Northern Territory. The effect of the bill would be to add this area of land to part 4 of schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. By being added to schedule 1, the land can then be granted to an Aboriginal land trust as inalienable Aboriginal freehold land.

By way of background, this bill resolves the Wakaya Alyawarre land rights claim. This land rights claim was lodged in 1990 and replaced a previous claim which had been lodged in 1980. This bill is the outcome of a negotiated Indigenous land use agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Central Land Council. The 2019 agreement extinguishes all land rights and native title over areas within the township of Canteen Creek, in exchange for a grant of surrounding Crown land as Aboriginal freehold land. But, in order for this agreement to be completed, the Commonwealth parliament must directly amend the land rights act.

The coalition is supportive of this bill. The initial agreement was between the Central Land Council and the Labor Northern Territory government. Following the recent election in the Northern Territory, we have consulted with the new government in relation to this proposal. They are supportive of this bill being passed. When I last rose to speak on this bill I noted the existence of exploration licences for petroleum and minerals which existed over this land. Since then, the Northern Territory government has advised that, if passed, the bill would not have any impact on pastoral interests. Further, it poses no issue for mining or energy interests.

We note that if this bill is passed it will provide the Northern Territory government and the town with certainty and confidence that necessary infrastructure and services for the local community will be in place now and into the future. We note that housing or commercial development projects often require lease terms over the land that are significant in length, in order for the projects to proceed. In this regard, the certainty which would be provided by this bill is important for future development and investment in the region.

Despite the necessity of ensuring confidence and certainty to the Northern Territory community, the coalition remains concerned about the process that has been adopted. We know that the Albanese government refused to refer this bill to a committee for examination. When the bill was introduced, the coalition requested that it be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. I made the point at the time that having the bill sent to the committee would be consistent with our democratic process. The coalition maintain that position, and we believe that the Albanese government's refusal to refer it to the committee was a wasted opportunity.

It is important to recognise that the government's decision in this regard is symptomatic of a broader issue. The reality is that the land rights act, which would be amended by this bill, has been in operation for nearly 50 years. I have been saying for some time now that the land rights act is in need of review and revision.

This bill would provide a timely opportunity to examine whether or not the land rights act is in fact still fit for purpose, whether it serves the interests of Indigenous Australians in the best way that it can or whether it needs to be revisited.

The land rights act is actually a very unique piece of legislation. It creates an arrangement and an opportunity for Indigenous Australians which should be a springboard for wealth, health and improved quality of life, and that is what is so concerning about the current situation. Despite this unique opportunity provided by the land rights act, Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are not the most advantaged. In fact, some Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are actually the most disadvantaged and marginalised, and this is a point I have tried to make often in this place. Our focus needs to be where the gap is the greatest. From research I've been personally involved with, we know that three per cent of the population of Australia is Indigenous, but, of that, only 20 per cent are in fact marginalised. Usually they live in remote locations and have English as a second or third language.

The situation in the Northern Territory is especially bad. The 2024 summary report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework is particularly telling. The report tells us that Indigenous Australians living in the Northern Territory experience the greatest level of disadvantage of any area. It showed that 68 per cent—that's nearly seven out of 10 Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory—live in the most disadvantaged quintile of Indigenous areas across Australia. In contrast, jurisdictions outside the Northern Territory have rates as low as 16 per cent or less. This level of disparity between the Northern Territory and places around Australia is very concerning, especially when we have the land rights act, which, in theory, provides an opportunity for this disparity not to exist. It goes to show that things are not working in the way that they should for our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. This is one of the reasons why we need to revisit the operation of the land rights act.

Further, we see a trend in the Northern Territory that traditional owners are land rich but dirt poor. This is, I believe, in part due to the land councils, especially when it comes to larger land councils. We are seeing that the way in which they operate makes it functionally impossible for land to be utilised for economic purposes. Land councils in the Northern Territory are established under the land rights act, and yet their poor performance and outcomes for traditional owners are a clear indication that the legislation needs to be reviewed. When it comes to leases under section 19 of the act, time delays are a major cause for concern. The average processing time of the Northern Land Council for section 19 leases was, as of February 2024, 666 days. Add to that the fact that the Northern Land Council had over 500 open lease applications on their books—no wonder they have such a backlog of applications, when each one has an average processing of close to two years.

These numbers stand in contrast to the two smaller Northern Territory land councils: Tiwi Land Council and the Anindilyakwa Land Council. The Tiwi Land Council takes an average of only three to six months to process section 19 leases, and Anindilyakwa takes approximately six to 12 months. In comparing these land councils we see that it is possible for things to be better, but the legislation needs to change so that efficiency can be improved. Again, this is why the reference of this bill to a committee would have been a beneficial step.

In addition to the time and processing delays we are seeing in larger land councils, it is also apparent that land councils are hindering opportunity. Despite the Territory having comparable wealth due to its resources, the Northern Territory sees only a fraction of the mining and energy projects that a place like Western Australia does. I've always said that, despite being a territory and not a state, the Northern Territory should look more like Western Australia than the ACT, due to our similar environments and resources. Yet this simply isn't the case.

If we want to empower Indigenous Australians to achieve economic independence and to stand on their own two feet, we need to be willing to examine existing structures like land councils. Examining the operation of the land rights act is to hold Indigenous Australians and organisations to the standard we would expect of any other person or organisation in Australia. But, unfortunately, the Albanese government doesn't want to do that. Maybe they don't want to do it because they don't want to take a fine-tooth comb and run it through their organisations. They don't want to have to come face to face with their failures. They would rather leave those things in the dark and just propose solutions that, for Indigenous affairs, centre on more funding and more bodies, departments or commissioners.

They care more about saving their reputation than ensuring we have properly functioning organisations.

The coalition, on the other hand, is not interested in creating more bureaucracy for the sake of it. We fully support the examination of the existing structures. These structures are worth examining; only then can we fix them to ensure they are effective and efficient. If the structures aren't able to be made effective and efficient, they shouldn't exist. The kneejerk type responses which we see time and time again from the Albanese Labor government that create more government just aren't going to cut it.

As some of the most powerful, important decision-making bodies in the Northern Territory, this bill could have ensured the land councils were examined if it had gone to committee. Opportunity abounds in the Northern Territory. That opportunity could be being used to improve the situations of those marginalised Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory who live in highly disadvantaged areas at a greater rate than those in other parts of the country, but the Albanese government would rather shut down these opportunities. While the coalition supports this bill, it feels it is necessary to highlight these points about the need for the land rights act to be revisited as a matter of urgency for the sake of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians.