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

Prior to moving the government amendments and putting the government’s requests, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and requests for amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 8 August 2006. I seek leave to move requests (4) and (8) on sheet PF377 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 46, page 22 (line 31) to page 23 (line 11), omit subsections 19A(6) and (7), substitute:

        (6)    A lease granted under this section must not make provision for the lessee to make a payment to a person other than the lessor.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 177, page 70 (line 7), omit “rent”, substitute “amounts”.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

Amendments (4) and (8)

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation as requests.

Amendment (4) will provide for increased rental payments to be made in relation to township leases and amendment (8) will allow any kind of payment in relation to township leases to be made. Both types of payments will be made from the Aboriginals Benefit Account, under proposed subsection 64(4A) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The amendments will therefore have the effect of increasing expenditure under the standing appropriation contained in section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. It is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that these amendments be moved as requests.

These requests refer to the removal of the cap on rental payments for township leases. The Northern Territory government and the land councils have put the view that a rental cap on township leases will impede the implementation of the township leasing scheme. Following consideration of the issues, the government has agreed to remove the rental cap. I am advised that the amendments also remove the prohibition on payments other than rent and make it clear that all payments must be made to the traditional owners.

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

The government has been given leave to move requests (4) and (8) together. I am not quite clear what the impact of the requests is, and I was wondering whether the minister could make that clear.

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

These requests relate to the removal of the cap on rental payments.

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

There are a couple of matters that I want to raise with the minister, and now might be the time to do it. Obviously, the government has had a fairly major change in relation to these issues, and I just want to be clear on what the argument was for the cap and why the government is now seeking to remove that cap. Is this because the government anticipates that people will be able to negotiate a rate higher than the cap? Is there an expectation that other matters, such as employment, will now be able to be included in any of those arrangements?

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

The view that was put to us by the Labor government of the Northern Territory and the land councils was that a rental cap on township leases will impede the implementation of the township leasing scheme. We have listened to their views. There has been a lot of urging for this government to consult and to listen to people. This is an area where the advice I have, Senator Evans, is that the land councils themselves put a view, as I said, that the rental cap would be an impediment. The government has listened to their views and is therefore moving these requests.

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

The second part of my question to the minister went to the issues of those parts of the requests that now allow matters other than monetary compensation to be included. I am interested in the government’s thinking in relation to that. Will that include a requirement for the provision of matters such as employment, or is it more about compensation reform other than monetary compensation? Will Indigenous people be able to negotiate employment outcomes or training outcomes as part of the development of the lease proposals?

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

Senator, I think that, essentially, we are trying to be flexible here. We will obviously be responsive to what people can achieve as a result of those negotiations. It could be that money up front and that type of thing may well suit the particular township. Essentially, the advice is that this provides the freedom to negotiate.

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

I have some questions for the minister on a couple of other issues. Under the new section 19A, it is technically possible for an entity other than a Northern Territory or Commonwealth government entity to hold a 99-year lease over an Aboriginal township. I am interested in whether other models have been considered. Is the government open to other models for that entity? What is the government’s understanding about what entity will be used in the first instance? The government says that there is a need to hurry to get this legislation passed. One of the concerns that we and others have had about this whole issue is the lack of detail about what form an entity would have and what Indigenous involvement there would be in decisions taken by that entity. The question goes to whether an entity other than a Northern Territory or Commonwealth government entity could be possible, whether one is envisaged, and, more broadly, whether or not the Commonwealth has a clear vision for what form the entity will take, given the expressed view that things will proceed quickly.

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

Senator Evans, we have been mindful of the desirability of giving the Northern Territory government as much flexibility as we can. I understand that it is likely that the entity to be established by the Northern Territory government will be a statutory authority. However—and let me stress this—we do not want to prevent the functions from being exercised by another type of body, possibly a Northern Territory department, for example. It will be up to the Northern Territory government to decide what type of body it wants to have responsibility for the township leases. In essence, we are trying to be flexible, we are trying to be accommodating and we are trying to not be too prescriptive in this area. My understanding is that the Northern Territory government is now developing its own legislation on this matter. I have no doubt that it will be exceedingly mindful of the points that have been made in this debate.

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

I thank the minister for the answer, but perhaps I ought to go back a step. The provisions of the amendment bill seek to provide the possibility of a Commonwealth government entity. I am interested to know whether or not that is planned or whether that is a fallback position. Why is it envisaged? You said, Minister, that your practical plans involve a Northern Territory statutory authority, although you then said something about a Northern Territory department. I was a bit confused in the end about whether it was either-or in terms of a statutory authority or department. Equally, I am interested to know why the Commonwealth entity is envisaged if the object of the legislation is a Northern Territory statutory authority.

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

The advice that I have received is that it is essentially a backstop element. The bill allows, as Senator Evans said, for a Commonwealth entity or a Northern Territory entity to hold township leases. Let me make it clear that the government believes that it is desirable that the township leases be held by a Northern Territory entity, given the Northern Territory government’s responsibility for land management. The bill allows, as Senator Evans quite correctly said, for the establishment of a Commonwealth entity to hold township leases to provide for an alternative body—and this is, in a sense, the backstop provision—if no Northern Territory entity is in place when Aboriginal landowners wish to grant a township lease.

I draw Senator Evans’s attention to the fact that the bill also allows for a transfer of a township lease from a Commonwealth entity to a Northern Territory entity. In other words, if there were no Northern Territory entity in place when the particular township wanted to establish the lease, it would theoretically be possible for the Commonwealth entity to be the responsible body. We have the capacity to transfer leases from a Commonwealth entity to a Northern Territory entity. I make this point, Senator Evans, which should give you a great deal of comfort: the Australian government’s aim would be to transfer any township leases held by a Commonwealth entity to a Northern Territory entity as soon as practicable. I think that probably deals with your concerns, Senator Evans.

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

I thank the minister for the answer and ask for clarification on the question about whether it might be a department or a statutory authority. Is it envisaged that it will be a separate statutory authority or is it envisaged that the entity will be described as a Northern Territory department of land administration or some such body?

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

I think the view is that it is most likely that it would be a statutory authority, although I am advised it is possible that in a particular matter, if the Northern Territory government wanted to use a department, the bill would allow that. Again, it is about being flexible and being responsive to the wishes of the Northern Territory government, which—and I do not need to draw this to Senator Evans’s attention—is a Labor government.

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

As the minister would know, if he were referring to any state or territory government, it would be a Labor government, so I am not sure that he has to emphasise that point. But if it suits him, that is fine. I think we can proceed on the basis that any dealings you have, Minister, with state or territory governments will be with Labor governments—for some time to come, I think. Finally, could the minister indicate how many town sites he envisages moving to this arrangement in the next six to nine months, given the urgency that has been expressed regarding the legislation?

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

We know that two are talking at the moment, and we have already received indications that there are a number of others that are interested.

Progress reported.