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

Pursuant to contingent notice, I, and also on behalf of Senator Bartlett and Senator Siewert, move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that:

(1)

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 be divided into two bills, as follows:

(a)

a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for other purposes; and

(b)

a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, to restrict certain entitlements of traditional Aboriginal land owners and for other purposes.

(2)

The first bill consist of the enacting words, clauses 1, 2 and 3 and Schedule 1, all items except: item 46, section 19A; items 50 and 51; item 52, section 21A; item 65, section 28C; items 172 to 186; and item 192, subsections 67A(12) to (17) of the original bill, renumbered as necessary; and that the second bill consist of: Schedule 1, item 46, section 19A; items 50 and 51; item 52, section 21A; item 65, section 28C; items 172 to 186; and item 192, subsections 67A(12) to (17) of the original bill, renumbered as necessary.

(3)

The following amendments be made to the second bill:

(a)

title, insert the title as shown in paragraph (1)(b) of this order;

(b)

after the title, insert the words of enactment; and

(c)

after the words of enactment, insert the following clauses:

1 Short title

This Act may be cited as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act (No. 2) 2006.

2 Commencement

This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

3 Schedule(s)

Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.

(4)

That the bill as amended by this order be printed.

I seek to have the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 split in order to allow passage of those sections of the bill that have been the subject of proper consultation and negotiation with the key stakeholders in the Northern Territory and to defer those aspects of the bill which have been introduced by the government since late last year that they are still seeking to amend on the run today. I notice there are more amendments from the government circulating in the chamber, which I think reflects the difficulties with their position. They claim now to be responding to input from stakeholders. I think that proves my central point, which is that, if they had had that contact, that negotiation, that discussion, with stakeholders earlier, we would have a much better package before us today. The government are picking up bits and pieces as they go, trying to make the package have some sort of coherence. I do not think they are there yet. I do not think, though, it is beyond the wit of the government and the stakeholders in the Northern Territory to get this right. But it is not right now. It lacks legitimacy. It lacks the consent of traditional owners. Those sections of the bill ought not to proceed.

I was going to remind the minister that Galiwinku is right next to Wagga Wagga, if he was looking for it on the map! But the first thing is this: those parts of the bill that include amendments to the mining exploration and subleasing provisions of the act are broadly consistent with the joint submission made by the Northern Territory land councils and the Northern Territory government in 2003. Those amendments are strongly pro development and were achieved through a long process of consultation and negotiation. They demonstrate the capacity of all parties to negotiate to achieve appropriate changes which streamline economic development and protect the interests of the traditional owners. They have the broad support of the traditional owners and mining interests, and Labor has confirmed its support for those provisions.

I think when you examine what the minister said in his closing remarks you will see he makes the case for the consultation, the negotiation and the long process. That is right, Minister, but it is only partly right. It is right for that part of the bill. Those things that arose out of the negotiations in the Northern Territory are the part of the bill that Labor stands ready to pass today. But that same process of negotiation, of discussion, of gaining the consent of traditional owners, has not occurred with these other parts of the bill. Senator Scullion may shake his head. He did not do us the courtesy of turning up to the committee inquiry.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not compulsory.

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

Senator Scullion, if you had come to the committee, you would have heard the evidence.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans, would you be kind enough to address your remarks through the chair.

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

I just make the point, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Scullion did not have the opportunity to hear the evidence from those parties. I want to reiterate: I do not think that it is beyond the wit of the government to get the consent of traditional owners to some of their objectives here. What has been lacking is a bit of goodwill. What has been lacking is the preparedness to spend the time to find a solution that allows traditional owners to maintain control of their land and facilitate economic development on that land through some sort of leasing scheme.

I have not yet met an Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory or elsewhere who has said to me they are not in favour of economic development. In fact, they always tell me quite the opposite. Senator Scullion and I are actually in screaming agreement. People understand that they need economic development to help their communities prosper. They want jobs, they want services, they want a decent supermarket in town and they want a mechanic where they can get their car fixed. They want all those services. There is no-one in this chamber who supports any sort of proposition that says that they should not get them. That will require, I think, both the nurturing of some economic enterprise in those communities and the resolving of some of the issues that exist in terms of land use. There is no question about that. But the question is about what then happens to the property rights of those landowners.

These people effectively have freehold title. This is their land—and you do not go and muck with their land without talking to them. You do not go and take away their property rights without talking to them. For the Liberal Party, the defenders of property rights, to be in here today saying we are effectively going to diminish people’s property rights, without consultation with them, without attempting to get their consent, I think will make a lot of past Liberals turn in their graves. This is fundamentally about dealing with property rights. You can get a better solution if you are prepared to work at it. You are not prepared to work at it.

What Labor are arguing for—and we have the support of the Democrats and the Greens on this, and I thank them for that—is to split the bill so that when we get to the issues that are more contentious, which have not had the benefit of negotiation and discussion or any sense of consent, we delay those sections of the bill so that the government can engage in that process. As I say, I do not think we are that far away on these issues. We are a long way away on how we treat Aboriginal people—whether we show them respect in dealing with them and dealing with their land rights—but the objectives of all in this parliament, and of Aboriginal people, in terms of economic development are very similar.

I think it is possible to get to a better result than the government have got to. To be fair to the government, they are making improvements. A lot of the changes and a couple of the amendments that the government have announced in recent times are things that I have been arguing for over recent weeks. I do not pretend that I had any influence on the government, but I do make the point that they have been arguments that we have been supporting. Some of those amendments do improve the bill, but the point is that you are not there yet—you are a long way from being there—and you still have the fundamental problem that you do not have the consent of the people whose land you are dealing with. That remains your fundamental problem. That is why Labor is opposed to proceeding with that part of the bill now—because you are again telling Aboriginal people what you are going to do to them rather than what you are going to do with them.

I will come to the voluntary nature of things in a minute. Clearly, we will get to some of those more specific debates. Essentially, what we are trying to do is to allow those things that have been agreed, that are pro economic development on Aboriginal land, that have been negotiated with the Aboriginal people and that have been delayed for too long, to proceed. We are keen for the government to take back the other sections of the bill, to negotiate with the Indigenous people and stakeholders—some of whom, along with the traditional owners, are very concerned about the implications of these provisions—and to come back with a package that the whole parliament can support.

One of the great things about the Northern Territory land rights legislation is that it had bipartisan support through this place. It has had a long history of bipartisan support. It is one of the most iconic pieces of legislation ever considered and passed by this parliament. To the credit of the Fraser government, it picked up the legislation, on the defeat of the Whitlam government, and passed it. As recommended by Justice Woodward, when he did his inquiry which led to the bill, we on all sides of politics have adopted the policy that we would not amend this bill without meeting a very strong test about Aboriginal and traditional owners’ knowledge of any amendments and, wherever possible, their consent to amendments.

That is the philosophy that underpinned the bill and that underpinned the Fraser government’s approach and approaches by all subsequent governments. It is the philosophy that underpinned this government’s approach to the first sections of the bill. The government had detailed negotiations and engaged with the land councils, traditional owners and the Northern Territory Labor government, and they came up with a good package—which would go through on the nod unanimously here today if the bill were split. But they also started to seize on some political opportunities late last year and sought to roll them into the whole package. So when the minister says that this has been the subject of long negotiations, he misleads the Senate. It is not true.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kemp interjecting—

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

I know you do not know anything about it, Senator, and that they wrote you the notes. But, if you are honest, and I am sure Senator Scullion will tell you this—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Evans, please address your remarks to the chair.

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

Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Senate needs to know that the level of consultation with and the level of knowledge and consent of traditional owners on matters contained in this bill are clearly split along the lines I am proposing that we split the bill. One section has been thoroughly negotiated and agreed; the other sections, which go to issues of leasing arrangements, the creation of new land councils, ministerial powers, funding protections for the land councils, the altered administration of the ABA and the title zones, have not been the subject of wide consultation and negotiation.

The Senate committee found that unanimously. In the report of the Senate committee that inquired into these matters, the Liberal senators who took an interest in the matter and attended the hearings found that. They did not go as far as we have in terms of calling for a split of the bill but, if you look at the report, it is clear that this does not have the consent of the Indigenous people—they do not know enough about it, they feel that it is being done to them without consultation and they are concerned by it.

As I said, my view is that the government ought to take it back and have another go at that section. I am not arguing for years of delay. I think with a bit of commitment the government could move quite quickly. Cyclone Mal, as the minister is known, can move quickly when required—some would say too quickly and with too little effect. If he could apply the same energies that he has brought to some other issues—ones that are slightly more negative for Indigenous people—it seems to me that this legislation need not be delayed inordinately. Labor have no interest in delaying it. We think that improved leasing arrangements in Indigenous communities is helpful for economic development.

So I am in the uncomfortable position, I suppose, that we agree on the objectives but we do not agree on the process. I do not usually like to argue about process, but in the end you have to make a decision about where you stand. That has been my practice over all my time in the Senate. It is unusual for me to be in this position. But the reality is that this is a very different piece of legislation and a very different issue for us. This is fundamentally about people’s property rights—the property rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. This bill will change the arrangements that apply to them on their land, without there having been proper consultation with them.

If we did that to people who own suburban blocks in Perth, I suspect, Senator Bishop, that we would have a riot on our hands. If we announced to them that we had put through the federal parliament a bill that interfered with their enjoyment of their backyard or their swimming pool, I suspect you and I would spend many months dealing with protests and complaints. But somehow, because these are the property rights of Aboriginal people, we can treat them in a different way. That is fundamentally what is wrong with this legislation. In dealing with these issues, we are not showing Indigenous people the respect they deserve and we are not showing enough respect for their property rights. That is at the heart of it.

I know it is a process argument in one sense, but it is a very important process argument. It is a very important argument that is at the basis of this parliament’s adoption of this legislation. At the start, we made it very clear—as did Justice Woodward and the House of Representatives committee that inquired into the act in 1999—that you need to be careful in amending the act and that you need to try as much as possible to ensure that traditional owners have full knowledge of and consent to what occurs. I think we can do better. We must do better. As I said, the committee, during a very short inquiry—having only one day available to it because of the workload—heard overwhelming evidence that people were concerned with the process the government was following and that they did not feel they had knowledge of what was being pursued.

I will come to a lot of the key issues that the minister alluded to later. I cannot cover them all here; this is essentially about trying to split the bill to allow the proper process to occur for those measures that have not been subject to proper consideration and negotiation with the traditional owners. The government’s key defence in all of this is that it is all voluntary and, therefore, they can pass whatever they like because, if the Aboriginal people do not agree, it just will not happen. Of course, that sounds all very good until you start examining what is happening on the ground. The reality is that the minister has already said to communities: ‘Sign up for the 99-year lease and you’ll get a new school and new houses. You’ll get the sorts of services that you are entitled to as citizens of this country—that is, access to education—if you sign up for the deal.’ That is not voluntary, in my view. That is not what I call voluntary.

The power relationship between the Commonwealth government and some of the poorest people in our community, people living in Third World conditions, is so unbalanced. To say that negotiation and bargaining between the powerful Commonwealth government and poverty-stricken Indigenous communities is somehow going to be fair is a complete nonsense. We have already seen, with the minister’s activities, an attempt to link the provision of basic services, basic rights of citizenship, like education and health services, to an agreement to enter into one of these leases. It is not about a voluntary contract. It is not about people being able to make intelligent decisions. It is about them facing the power of the Commonwealth and being coerced into entering into the leasing arrangements. And it is all so unnecessary.

Aboriginal people want economic development on their lands. They want services. They want normalisation of their townships so that they can get clean water, electricity, gas and access to shops and services. These are goals they share. They would even be interested in private homeownership—although a lot of them think that is a long way from being achieved. But, if that is part of the solution, great; if there are opportunities for private homeownership, I am sure they will take them. In dealing with these issues, they should not have to feel that their property rights, their land rights, have to be traded away in order to get that sort of development. They ought to be able to have a fair process of bargaining, a fair process which allows them to control what happens on their land.

What is completely absent from this bill is any detail about what input Indigenous people would have once they have signed up to the lease. There is no mention of whether they would have any control once the lease was signed. We are asking people living in abject poverty to sign up to agreements that sign away their land rights, their property rights, for 99 years without any knowledge of whether they will have any say at all over what happens on that land for the next 99 years. Unfortunately, for Indigenous people that is almost four generations. In signing up, they lose total control. That is a really difficult choice for them. The unfair power relationship between the Commonwealth and those communities is not something we ought to be endorsing. As I said, we can get a better outcome. We can get changes to leasing arrangements in Indigenous communities. We can get economic development. But it has to be done in a way in which there are some reassurances for Indigenous people that they will have some say over what happens on their land, and it has to be done in a way that ensures the voluntary nature of the agreement is protected.

Currently, I am not at all convinced that the provisions that allegedly provide for voluntary participation are anywhere near strong enough. The power relationship between the Commonwealth and these communities reminds me a bit of the Work Choices legislation, where an unskilled 18-year-old fronting up to an employer allegedly has the same sort of bargaining power as an employer in a time of high unemployment. It is just a nonsense. There is no fair bargaining arrangement. We want to ensure that Indigenous people are able to negotiate these leasing arrangements from a position where they have power over their land and where they find the legislation has not undermined them before they start.

The Commonwealth needs to take back the second part of this bill and negotiate properly and fairly. I do agree with a couple of things the minister said. They are not that far away from a lot of the Aboriginal groups in terms of these provisions because they share common objectives. But they are far enough away for it not to be appropriate for this parliament to approve the bill in this form at this time. If the Commonwealth were genuinely committed to the process and genuinely committed to respecting Indigenous voices and Indigenous representation, they would go back and work through some of the issues that remain in contention and bring back a bill that the whole parliament could support and which had the consent of traditional owners.

I think that is possible. As I said, I think that some of the amendments the government have made will improve the bill. But they are not there yet. They are not at a point where Labor could feel comfortable supporting the bill in its current format. Without that consent of traditional owners we do not think this parliament ought to be proceeding. We urge the Senate to split the bill and to allow us to deal with those matters that have been agreed to and to allow the government to deal properly with Indigenous people before proceeding with the other aspects. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you know, the Greens are jointly moving this amendment. I commend it to the Senate and urge the Senate to support it. I would like to touch on the issue of consultation. It continues to amaze me that the government can claim that there has been consultation over these controversial changes that we are trying to split. It amazes me that they continue to run the line that there has been consultation.

Unfortunately, I was unable to make it to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry hearings into the bill. However, I have read the Hansard and I have read the submissions. It is quite clear from those that the land councils do not support the changes we are talking about. They do support the amendments that the Australian Greens, the ALP and the Democrats are supporting on mining—that is true. There has been extensive consultation with the land councils and with the communities, but there has not been on these other changes. I would like to quote from the Hansard of the inquiry so that I can make it quite clear that the land councils do not support these amendments. The NLC do, in their evidence, support the mining changes. However, the NLC said:

... the NLC has very serious concerns regarding other amendments which (1) appear to breach or impliedly repeal the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (2) appear directed at effectively implementing the 1998 Reeves report model by breaking up land councils and removing financial independence, and forcing them in effect to publicly disclose confidential minutes and to ‘delegate’ functions to small and unrepresentative corporations and (3) terminate non-contiguous land claims to the intertidal zone and rivers, and enable termination of claims to Northern Territory Land Corporation land. Some of these amendments have only recently been raised, have not been the subject of comprehensive consultation and do not have the consent of traditional owners as recommended by the ATSIA committee in 1999.

They went on to say:

The proposals that land councils be forced to delegate land use functions to small corporations and prioritise scarce resources to them are unworkable and inefficient and will promote dispute and jeopardise development outcomes.

Moving to the evidence of the Central Land Council—one of the other land councils that we are talking about—it was stated that, likewise, they:

... would like it noted on the public record that neither the land councils nor the traditional Aboriginal landowners have been consulted in respect of the whole-of-community leasing proposals nor the stripping of land council functions under the guise of delegation. The ... Land Council was briefed on these amendments and asked to provide comment on the workability of the package as a whole, but this is not consultation.

The Central Land Council, through their evidence and through their submissions to the committee, highlighted their very serious concerns and how they believe that the proposals are not workable. Let us put to bed this issue of whether land councils have been consulted over these amendments. Those are the words of the land councils. They have not been consulted and, to the very brief inquiry at which they were given a very short time frame in which to respond, they clearly articulated that not only have they not been consulted but they do not support the amendments, believe they are unworkable and will in fact undermine the very aims the government claims it is trying to achieve by promoting economic development.

I would like to reinforce the comments made by Senator Evans in terms of the voluntary nature of these proposals. It is not voluntary when funding will be provided by government contingent on them signing a headlease. That is coercion; it is not a voluntary agreement—and the sooner that issue is also put to bed, the better. I am tempted to believe that these controversial changes have been tacked on to this bill on purpose. The government went out and consulted very properly with land councils and communities on changes that were much needed. They did that over a long period of time. However, I believe that the government saw political advantage in tacking these amendments on to the bill in that they could then claim that there has been a lot of consultation over this bill. Quite clearly, the evidence indicates that there has not been appropriate consultation. There is not agreement from the land councils. The government can try and force these amendments through, but they cannot claim that they have community support.

We are very happy to support those elements of the bill which quite clearly have land council support, but we do not support the changes that will undermine the very aims that this government claims it is trying to achieve. I would be more than happy to support a package brought back by the government that indicates how it will deal with the issues that limit the economic development potential of regional and remote Aboriginal Australia—those things such as education and training, lack of employment opportunities and lack of infrastructure support. All those issues need to be addressed and are not addressed by the proposals in this legislation. In fact, the land councils, when given their very limited opportunity to comment, said that the proposals will undermine workability, will undermine good governance arrangements and are not practicable or workable. I very strongly encourage the Senate to support this motion to split the bill and to go back and rework those flawed elements of the proposal.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion and I want to provide some comments as to why that is the case. Let us have another quick look at the beginning of the negotiations around this bill, and let us get on record clearly what is meant by consultation and what is simply meeting the land councils with draft amendments so that they can have a cursory look and a scan over what is proposed, rather than entering into genuine negotiations with this government.

We know that around the 2003-2004 mark the Northern Territory government entered into discussions with the land councils over the changes to this bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, consisting of the workability and the mining, exploration and leasing sections. We know that a document that had the agreement of the Minerals Council and the land councils was sent to Minister Ruddock. My understanding is that the federal government were quite keen to approve and amend the act in accordance with the major stakeholders in the Territory, who had undertaken that long and extensive piece of work.

Then we had the Northern Territory government’s proposal that they would pick up on an idea that I think was mentioned at a conference in Jabiru by David Ross of the Central Land Council in relation to the 99-year lease proposal. My understanding is that it was one of many ideas that were put forward at that conference as a way of advancing economic development on Indigenous land. It is interesting that that is the one proposal that they picked up out of all of the many others that Mr Ross spoke about.

We know that there is a third tranche of amendments to this act—amendments about which there has not been full and frank consultation with Indigenous people and land councils. I refer to the ability of other Aboriginal corporations and associations to establish land councils in the Territory; the ability of the minister to compulsorily demand that land councils transfer some of their functions to these new bodies or corporations if they get established; that land councils will be required to be more accountable than they currently are in terms of their outputs and workloads; that land councils in fact will not be funded by at least 40 per cent of the Aboriginals Benefit Account but by a yearly grant at the behest of the Commonwealth government. We know that the land councils may well have been shown these amendments, but they were never, ever invited to engage in full, frank and honest negotiations about the changes to the land rights act.

We can talk about how ‘we have consulted Indigenous people’—and we strongly disagree with that. We can talk about how ‘this is an opportunity for Aboriginal people in the future to develop economic wealth and homeownership and advance their lot in life in this country’. But let us be really honest about what this means from this federal government. This is about a policy of assimilation. This is not about self-determination; this is about saying to Indigenous people in this country—and this bill applies only to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory—‘You have to behave like whitefellas in this country. If your lot in life is going to improve, you need to jump on the bandwagon that all of us non-Indigenous people aspire to, and that is to own your own home.’

Indigenous people do not aspire to that. They live in quite a different cultural world. There are some out there who want to do that. I know of Indigenous people on Groote Eylandt who work at the GEMCO mine, who earn quite a lot of money and who would be keen to own their own home. But they can already do that under the existing section 19 provisions of the land rights act. This is about saying to Indigenous people: ‘If you really want to be a true Australian, you’ve got to act like the rest of us. And we all know that we think the first thing you’ve got to do to actually prove you’re successful is to own your own home.’ Well, that is not a measure of success for Indigenous people, but this government just does not get it.

What they ought to get is this: the one thing that Indigenous people hang on to, are proud of and want to maintain, not for 100 years or thousands of years but for tens of thousands of years, is their critical and vital link to the land. That is the core of their being. That is why they exist. They have an intrinsic relationship with the land, just as any Catholic has when they see the sign of the cross. It is the same spiritual relationship. Their land determines who they are in life, how they behave, who they marry, what language they speak and where they can and cannot go. That is why we have sacred sites. That is why we have restrictions around places like Uluru—not because it is a big rock in the middle of the desert and we do not want hundreds of thousands of tourists to destroy it each year but because it is the heart of the spiritual beliefs and operations of people in Central Australia.

This government just does not get it. So the very first time it wants to get up and butcher the Aboriginal land rights act, what is the very essence that it attacks? The land leasing provisions under this act, which provide the right for people to keep their title. But Aboriginal people want more than to keep their title. Really, it is a bit of a furphy for people to say, ‘You will still keep the title over your land,’ when it has been their land for 40,000 years. It was their land before we ever heard of Captain Cook or Matthew Flinders. It has always been their land; it has always been their title. It was not until whitefellas decided to emigrate from England and Ireland that we decided that it was not their land anymore. But it has always been their land. They do not understand the argument that they have to go through our courts of law to prove what was always theirs.

Now we are saying to them: ‘We’ve come up with a really good idea here. You’re the poorest people in the country; you desperately need more houses. We’ll provide you with a secondary boarding college on the Tiwi Islands because the other one is so badly run down that it ought to be bulldozed, but we’re only going to give it to you if you decide to give us your land under 99-year leases.’ Which means what? I questioned Mr Bree from the Northern Territory government and Mr Stacey from the OIPC but no-one could give us the details about this. No-one actually has the fine print. If you ask a different person on a different day: ‘What does giving up a 99-year lease to your township mean?’ you will get a different answer. Some people will say, ‘We haven’t quite defined what a township is for a place like Nguiu or a place like Galiwinku.’

Where do the boundaries start and end in terms of the township? Who is going to pay for the extra infrastructure if 50 new houses are built on a land lease at Elcho Island? Who is going to pay for the extra sewage works or the electricity upgrades that will be needed in that community to service those new houses? I heard someone say last week, ‘Oh gee, that’s a problem we haven’t thought of.’ The local community council has not been involved in these discussions; the Northern Territory government have not thought about it; certainly the federal government have not thought about it. But I bet you London to a brick that if any of those communities sign on the dotted line for a 99-year lease this mob will run a mile and will not be prepared to put one extra cent into providing more sewage works or more electricity on Bathurst Island. The Tiwi Islands Local Government told me when I went there two weeks ago that it is a serious problem when you have this idea floating around in the heads of some bureaucrats and ministers from the federal government.

The local government does not have the money to pay for the new infrastructure. The Northern Territory government have not thought about it and are probably struggling to exist under their current budget. The view is: ‘Oh, I know, we’ve got the Aboriginals Benefit Account; let’s draw on that. There’s $100 million sitting in that account; let’s draw down on that.’ The government see that as a great slush fund in order to opt out of their responsibility to provide infrastructure and basic services to Indigenous people. The ABA was never and should never be used for that purpose. It should be used to negotiate gas pipelines. It should be used to negotiate train lines that run from Darwin to Alice Springs, as it has been used in the past—projects that provide genuine, long-term benefits and economic development for Indigenous people. It should not be used to build 50 new houses in a place like Elcho Island.

As a non-Indigenous person in this community, I am not asked to give up my land in order to provide basic infrastructure services. I do not have shares in any company, but if I did have I would not be asked to dip into the shares of any company that I might hold or any benefits I have from any company to pay for basic infrastructure services, but that is what we are asking Indigenous people to do. The Aboriginals Benefit Account has been set up to hold money that people have rightly obtained from the royalties from mining. It is their money to be used as they wish. It is not money to be used by the federal government to replace basic infrastructure and services. It should not be used by the government as an excuse to opt out of their obligation to put houses, health centres or boarding schools in communities. But that is what the government want to do and they are using this legislation as a way to get around that.

The other thing I want to say about the 99-year lease system is this: the government will put their hand on their heart and say: ‘We do not want to touch the permit system on Indigenous land. There is nothing in this bill that specifically amends the act to abolish the permit system.’ But if you actually think about the 99-year lease, where people will give up a township like Nguiu, they will not have any control over who comes and goes and they will not have any control over what establishments will be built there or not built there. Effectively, you do abolish the permit system. You cannot have what is in the little dream bubble of the federal government in this chamber—an opening up of lands on Indigenous communities—without effectively destroying the permit system. These are the kinds of negotiations that we believe ought to take place with Indigenous people. Some people in the Public Service will say to me, ‘Traditional owners will be able to negotiate certain conditions on certain leases.’ Are you telling me that the people on Elcho Island will have a right of veto over who sets up a business in their community? Is that what you are telling me? The answer is: ‘We are not really sure; we have not quite worked out whether they will have that level of control.’

These are the kinds of things that we are saying to the federal government. Let us put a brake on this bill. Let us put a hold on this legislation. Let us run with those amendments we know have been negotiated and agreed between the major parties and let us take the time to put this bill off for a couple of months, to December perhaps—as Senator Evans said, we are not asking for this bill to be put off for years, just months—while Indigenous people get to ask those questions and while we get it really sorted out in our heads what getting a 99-year lease over your township really means. What right of veto do you still have as a traditional owner? Why is it that any profits from a 99-year lease will be held by a Northern Territory entity rather than going back into the community to be disbursed between traditional owners? Why is that not a proposal that has been discussed and negotiated? Indigenous people have not had a chance to put those ideas and those views down on paper.

We talk about a Northern Territory government entity that will hold and manage these land leases. This will be, I think, the first time in a very long time in this Senate chamber that we are agreeing to legislation that relies on consequential legislation which we have not yet seen. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee is looking at a bill to replace the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act and we have put a hold on that bill because it relies on transitional legislation which we have not seen. The government have agreed to that. They have actually said to the committee: ‘You can extend your reporting date until you have seen the transitional legislation. Take your time over this. This is significant; this is important. Let us take our time and do it properly.’ But when it comes to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory who will rely on the land leases to be held by a Northern Territory entity or authority, we have not seen that legislation. Who sits on that authority? Who will be responsible for that authority? The Chief Minister? Another minister in the Territory? Will there be dual authority and responsibility to the federal government? What powers will this authority have? What accountability back to traditional owners will they have? Will land councils be on this authority? Will traditional owners be represented on this authority? We cannot answer any of those questions.

I bet if I ask Minister Kemp those questions now he still would not know, because I do not think it has been worked out. So why should we be asked to put legislation through this chamber that requires Indigenous people to give up their land for 99 years? Why should we ask them to do that when we do not know the details? We do not know how it is going to operate. We do not know the cost. We do know, though, that for every area of land that will be surveyed in order to be leased we are looking at at least $1 million to undertake the survey. No-one has plotted the land and townships on Indigenous communities yet. They do not have township plots and lots. They do not have zoned areas. That is all going to have to happen and it will take big bucks to do that—big bucks when Indigenous people are really saying to us: ‘If you have a plan for this country, don’t put us in a position where you will make us give up our land to have basic infrastructure services. Put the money into health, education and jobs growth rather than this thought bubble that our lot in life can seriously improve if we have to give up our land to you whitefellas for 99 years.’ It is not going to work and it is not going to be viable.

If this federal government believes that it has undertaken the best, the brightest and the most thorough consultation that ever existed in relation to this act, why is it that Anindilyakwa Land Council on Groote Eylandt and the Tiwi Land Council did not bother to appear before the Senate committee? They did not have one person who was able to appear before the Senate committee and champion how great this new proposal will be. We know that those two land councils like this idea. They have a very small, discrete area of land in which to start to trade and negotiate. But they might also have some ideas that can be shared with other Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. But this is a government that is not going to allow Indigenous people the time to enter into some serious negotiations about these changes.

Our suggestion to split the bill simply says that: put through the changes that you actually believe will be beneficial to Indigenous people and that they agree to and want to happen, and let us take our time and put through the other changes to the legislation after there has been some serious negotiation and consultation, after questions have been asked, after the fine print has been examined and after we have seen the Northern Territory consequential legislation that puts in place a Northern Territory entity.

Debate interrupted.