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

I rise to speak to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, particularly the proposed instruction to the committee to divide the bill. Those opposite, who propose to support the dividing of the bill in committee, do so on the basis that for some reason or other they believe that the government has failed to consult widely, particularly on the issue of the headleases on Aboriginal townships. The Commonwealth government have to rely from time to time on the consultation processes of others as well as our own. It is with interest that I note that those on the other side, from the Labor Party, are supporting the proposition that the Labor Party in the Northern Territory have not in fact consulted on this matter. It was the Labor Party in the Northern Territory who indicated quite early that they would be consulting widely with communities. They have instructed us that they have spoken to a number of communities on this matter. If anybody knows about state and territory governments, they know the way they work every day in a whole range of departments, from education and health delivery to policing.

This notion of a 99-year lease in the Northern Territory has been about for a very long time. Over the past year, at almost every level of government, I know that this has been discussed. Every community that I visit tells me that the issues surrounding the 99-year lease have been widely discussed, so again I am a bit miffed that those on the other side are saying that we have not consulted sufficiently on this matter, when this is a matter on which we have taken some guidance from the Northern Territory branch of the Labor Party. Clare Martin and her government in the Northern Territory have said, ‘We think that the 99-year head leasing and the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act should go ahead.’ So here we are in this place. We now have those opposite telling us that that is not the case, that we have not consulted widely enough. Again, with the Labor Party one would expect that the left hand would not really know what the right hand is doing, but this is a very important matter. People are quite concerned about what is going on. The Labor Party in the Northern Territory have said to us, ‘We would like this to go ahead.’ The government must make some reasonable assumptions, not only that they would like it to go ahead but that they have consulted reasonably widely.

I have been in two communities where not only has it been debated widely but this particular issue has been widely supported. The whole notion of a headlease on Indigenous land in the Tiwi Islands was most applauded, and since then, I am pleased to report, as recently as Friday last week I had a phone call from an individual representing some traditional owners on the Tiwi Islands. They were delighted that the process of the headlease is in fact going to go ahead with the Tiwi Islands. The opposition says they have not been consulted with, but at least one of the principal land councils, the Tiwi Land Council, not only accepts it but is currently, as we speak, taking the first steps to implement it.

Those on the other side either have very little idea of what consultation means or they are fairly ill-informed about what is happening in the Northern Territory. We are a long way from the Northern Territory down here—I concede that—but one would think that the Labor Party could simply ring the old Northern Territory branch. Pick the phone up. ‘Clare, how’s it going?’ Senator Evans could say, and Clare Martin will be able to explain to the good senator exactly why we do not need a split in this bill, why we have had adequate and sufficient consultation. Groote Eylandt is another area where we have had extensive consultation, and again people are very supportive of that matter. Not only are they supportive of that matter but they are actually moving ahead to start to get business done in a way that predicates not only consultation but wider acceptance on that matter.

The whole notion that we should split this bill comes because Senator Evans says: ‘Look, Senators, I accept the notion. I accept the end point of this, but I just don’t accept the process.’ Quite clearly, what has already been said in this place, in this debate, is that the Northern Territory branch of the Labor Party, the Northern Territory government, the Tiwi Islands local government, the Tiwi Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the people from Groote Eylandt and the spokespeople from Galiwinku have clearly articulated that not only is this something that they want and require but it is also something that they have started to go down the process of implementing. We have started to go down the process, so do not confuse issues and say, ‘Are we going to do this or are we not?’ We have already taken steps to go down the process of creating a headlease for these areas.

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that those opposite really do not have a reasonable handle on the level of consultation that is taking place or just how long this process has taken. I have just taken one aspect, and that is the aspect of the headleases, but there are a whole range of other matters associated with the amendments to the Aboriginal land rights act which have taken a full nine years. I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the Northern Territorians saw amendments to the Aboriginal land rights act a little like the railway: it was something that had been coming for decades. Someone had promised us some reviews. It is 30 years since the Aboriginal land rights act was amended. Clearly it is not only something that needs to be amended but over the fullness of time it needs to be modernised and it needs to reflect the wishes of Indigenous Territorians.

The wishes of Territorians in this matter have quite clearly been reflected because of the facts that they have been consulted, the Northern Territory government agrees with it, I know certainly one land council agrees with it and everywhere I travel in the Northern Territory people say: ‘This is not only something we demand but something we are already up to our fetlocks in. We’ve already made commitments.’ People are already consulting. People are already making decisions about where that town lease should go. Traditional owners are meeting and deciding exactly what this means for each of the clan groups. The issues that have infected the growth of some of these towns for so long are going to be resolved, but they are not going to be resolved by the continuous delay under the ridiculous banner of, ‘The process isn’t quite right.’ The process is not only right; the process is on foot. On behalf of Indigenous Territorians, I call on those opposite to support the bill immediately.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not dispute Senator Scullion’s knowledge of Northern Territory issues. Obviously, he is from there and I am not. And I would not profess to be across the full details, as he is, of various issues that have arisen at a community level. But I do not want to put myself in a position where I completely ignore the comprehensive, wide-ranging and undeniable evidence provided to the scandalously short Senate committee inquiry into this legislation, from a whole range of people from the Northern Territory, including traditional owners, all of whom expressed very strong dissatisfaction with parts of this legislation and with this process.

I may be from somewhere outside the Territory, but nonetheless I have a responsibility to listen to the evidence provided to the Senate committee by people from the Territory, and particularly from people who will be directly affected by this legislation. I remind the Senate that despite what Senator Scullion just said—and I point out that he did not attend the single-day hearing into this legislation, which was held in Darwin—the evidence to the Senate committee hearing in the submission from some of the traditional owners of north-east Arnhem Land stated:

Most of our homelands have no electricity, we have no newspapers, we do not get ABC Radio or TV—it is very hard to know what Government is doing. We had heard that the Land Rights Act was going to be amended, but it was only by chance that we heard about your Senate Committee hearing. We have had little time to try and understand what these changes might mean, and we have no access to lawyers and other independent experts. It takes time and resources to inform and consult with our members and clansfolk, and we have to rely on our staff who are not experienced in these matters to help us.

This submission came from a group of people from a key area that will be directly affected by these changes—not just by the 99-year headlease provisions, but by a range of other changes in this legislation. If you had heard some of the debate on this matter from the government side you would think that all this legislation was about was the potential to set up a 99-year headlease over townships, but there are a lot of other aspects to the legislation.

It is a simple fact, provided in evidence to the committee hearing by the government witnesses, that this aspect of the legislation—the proposal for a 99-year headlease over townships—did not appear until late last year. So you can talk all you like about nine years worth of consultations, but the fundamental component of the changes that are contained in this legislation did not appear until last year. So it is simply misleading to talk about there being consultation for years and years and years. It is not true. And this is a fundamental area that directly affects Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.

I would also emphasise that, as was made clear in evidence to the Senate committee inquiry, this change to the headlease provisions is not necessary to allow leases to be set up. There was already scope under the legislation to enable leases to be set up for prolonged periods of time—as we saw with the Alice to Darwin railway that Senator Scullion mentioned, which uses, as I understand it, a 99-year lease covering Aboriginal land. So clearly it is grossly misleading to suggest that this fundamental change—which puts Indigenous people in a position where control over their own land and their own townships can be contracted out for 100 years, so they will have to pay rent out of the Aboriginal Benefits Account—is somehow essential to allow economic exploitation or economic gains to be made out of Indigenous people’s lands.

But I have to say that Senator Scullion is right to point to the role of the Northern Territory Labor government in this. They have made it very difficult because the Northern Territory Labor government have, quite clearly, acquiesced in this process. Even in their evidence to the Senate committee hearing, whilst they acknowledged some of the problems with consultation, they basically took a hands-off approach and said, ‘Well, it’s not our role; it is not our job. There should be more consultation; that would be ideal, but we like the bit we’re getting out of it so we’re not going to say anything.’ And I am not surprised. There is a huge land grab contained in this legislation, which wipes out all existing land claims over intertidal zones that run along areas that do not connect with existing Aboriginal land holdings.

It was quite clear from the evidence presented to the committee by the Northern Territory government—I think it was in response to questioning from Senator Moore—that Northern Territory government officials were quite happy for Aboriginal people to be able to generate economic wealth from their land. And the land councils that appeared before the hearing made it quite clear that they wanted to use these intertidal zones that they had land claims over to negotiate with the commercial fishing industry to generate economic wealth for their people. But the Northern Territory government did not want them to use that for that purpose. The Northern Territory government wanted that land. So there was complete hypocrisy from the Territory government which said, ‘We’re happy for them to generate income from their land, just not that land. We want that land so we can generate income from it.’

It has to be emphasised that a number of the land claims over some of those intertidal zones had already been recommended, by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, as appropriate to grant to Aboriginal people. So they were not fanciful ambit claims; they were claims that had been found to be valid by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and had sat on the minister’s desk unacted upon for some time. This legislation just wipes all of that out, in one go. To me that is unacceptable. It is certainly unacceptable unless it is done with the support and agreement of the potential Aboriginal owners, with some potential trade-off involved perhaps. But, again, that support was not forthcoming. It was certainly not there in the evidence provided to the Senate committee.

It also has to be emphasised, regardless of what might have been said by Senator Scullion about consultation, that it was clear from the evidence provided to the Senate committee by the small number of Indigenous groups that were able to make submissions and provide some evidence to the inquiry that they did not believe they had been consulted on key aspects of this legislation. And certainly, in some respects, there were some components within the legislation that did not match what had been put forward previously.

So either Senator Scullion is right in saying that there has been widespread consultation with absolutely every stakeholder, enabling free, fair and informed consent about every aspect of this legislation, or the Indigenous people who gave evidence to the Senate committee hearing are right. It cannot be both, because their views directly contradict each other. Frankly, given that it is the Indigenous people’s rights that are being legislated away here—not the Northern Territory government’s, the federal government’s or Senator Scullion’s—then I am much more inclined to believe the views of the Indigenous people who gave evidence to the inquiry.

Again, let me emphasise what is to be lost in separating this legislation—putting through the parts that there is already strong agreement with and putting to one side to examine further the parts where there is not agreement. The only thing to be lost is a small amount of time. What is a few months, even six months of proper consultation, community consultation, with affected communities and people? What is that compared to what can be gained? We should look at what can be gained. What can be gained is actual engagement and support at community level not only by a few favoured communities that have been picked out specially to enable political reinforcement of whatever the minister wants to do but by Indigenous people across the Territory. That would be an enormous thing to gain. What an enormous benefit we would get in trying to implement the stated objectives of this legislation if you actually had the affected communities, the traditional owners and the land councils supporting it, welcoming it and engaging with it. The chances of achieving what is stated that it is attempted to achieve would be dramatically increased even if the content does not change.

I disagree very strongly with the suggestion, ‘Process doesn’t matter. Just because you disagree with the process, that’s nothing; it’s what’s in legislation that counts.’ I have concerns with what is in the legislation and I have made that clear. The process is very important, particularly when you are dealing with people whose property rights are affected, a group of people who have been dispossessed by this government and this parliament historically, going back since European settlement, and when you are trying to continue to resolve some of those injustices that have occurred. When you have the dominant society trying to implement new legislation that will affect those who have suffered disadvantage and injustice as a result of the dominant society, of course you are going to benefit if the process involved in making those changes has the support of those who have already been subjected to enormous injustice.

What is there to lose by taking the time to consult properly? There is nothing to lose and there is an enormous amount to gain. The fact that the government refuse to do that says to me that their main concern with this legislation and some of the changes within it is not with making advances for Aboriginal people in the Territory, it is ideological advancement, political point-scoring and the implementation of their ideological agenda. That is what their aim is. If they had concerns about the impact on Indigenous people, they would work with them. Anybody knows, particularly in this area, if you want changes to work properly at community level, you work with consultants and engage with and get the agreement from the people whom the changes are going to affect. If you do not do that then your chances of getting success diminish enormously.

Again, this leads me to assume that there is no particular interest in getting success in regard to the stated objectives of this legislation. There are components within it that clearly give the minister more power, that take power away from the land councils and from the traditional owners. There are components within it, as I have stated, that simply remove land claims and approved land claims from the hands of Indigenous people. There are components within it that require the funds that are already going to be appropriated for the benefit of Aboriginal people to be spent on paying the leases in Aboriginal townships, so it will lead to less money being available for things it would have otherwise been spent on. There are significant problems with this, but the overall point and purpose of consultation is not just some feelgood thing; it is specifically about trying to ensure that the legislation works in the way that it is intended to work. That again is something that, if there were any genuine desire here from the government’s point of view, there would be some effort to try to implement.

I note the irony of these changes being forced through the Senate at this time straight after last Thursday, which was the United Nations International Day of the World’s Indigenous People. What a way to mark that day, by forcing through changes that occurred without the free, prior and informed consent of the people who would be affected. I note the comments made by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Calma, in marking the International Day of the World’s Indigenous People, where he talked about the goals of solving the problems faced by Indigenous people such as economic and social development, culture, education and health—all areas that we are concerned about. He said:

To achieve these goals indigenous people must be fully involved in the formation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation of processes on laws, policies, resources and projects which affect us; this is our right.

It is not, according to this government. It is clearly not because they have not shown sufficient interest in ensuring that that happens.

I also draw the Senate’s attention to the submission put together by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Calma, who is a traditional owner from part of the Territory that would be affected by this legislation. He points out that the Australian government have already promised and indicated publicly that they would act in accordance with the objectives agreed by the General Assembly as part of the International Decade for the World’s Indigenous Peoples and as part of moves that are a long way down the track in developing the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. One of the key objectives the Australian government have said they would act in accordance with and promote is full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions that directly or indirectly affect their lifestyles, traditional lands and territories. The cultural integrity of Indigenous peoples with collective rights and other aspects of their lives considering the principle of free, prior and informed consent could not be much clearer. With this legislation and the way it has been dealt with, at least in terms of the key components of it, you could not get a clearer breach of the principle and objectives that the Australian government said they would act in accordance with.

All we got from the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination was, ‘Oh, well, we told the land councils what we were going to do, and it’s up to them to consult with their constituent members.’ That is a farcical interpretation of what free, prior and informed consent means, and it is a farcical interpretation of what it means to say ‘promoting full and effective Indigenous participation’ in decisions which directly affect the lifestyles and traditional lands of Indigenous peoples. You could not get a clearer, more fundamental example of legislation that directly affects the lifestyles and traditional lands of Indigenous people, and yet there has been no effort and no recognition of the need to make an effort to ensure full and effective participation of the Indigenous peoples in those changes, let alone ensure that there is free, prior and informed consent to the changes. That is what I find so offensive—and the continual, deliberately deceptive attempts to pretend that there has been comprehensive consultation I find equally offensive.

It is pleasing to see that the federal government have had to withdraw offensive legislation regarding basic legal rights for asylum seekers, since they recognised that it would not get through the Senate because of welcome indications from a few coalition senators that they simply could not bring themselves to support the legislation. I just wish there were a similar outbreak of concern and conscience amongst one or two coalition senators about this legislation. As people know, I am very strongly in favour of, and have done a lot of work on, promoting the rights of asylum seekers, supporting the rights of refugees and of having a decent immigration act that meets the rule of law and basic legal principles. But I know that sometimes some Indigenous Australians find it just a bit frustrating, if not bordering on offensive, that many Australians are willing to go to the barricades regarding the rights of refugees and yet seem to display far less interest, concern, energy, action and motivation when it comes to dealing with the rights of Indigenous Australians. I suspect that is because people are not sure what they can do. They feel as though it is just too difficult and that the political determination is just too strong. But I would urge all the Australians who collectively played a part in killing the recent piece of legislation that would have undermined the basic rights of asylum seekers to devote just as much energy to continuing attempts to undermine the basic rights of Indigenous Australians. If anything, it is more important to our nation as a whole, because our nation as a whole will never be able to fully advance to its complete potential unless we deal properly and with respect with Indigenous Australians.

This legislation—or certainly key components of it—and the process that has been followed simply show a lack of respect, and I find that very disappointing and very much against our own self-interest as a nation. That is why I urge at least some from the coalition side of the Senate to support this motion to require the contentious parts of this legislation to get further examination before they are proceeded with.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to express some disappointment and frustration with the response of the government to the recommendation that we split the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 today and pass the core components we can agree on and move forward in a positive way. Key areas were identified at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry and through the debate we had in this place last week as remaining areas of concern, not just for the senators in this place—we are, in fact, in the final stage of this debate—but, more particularly, for the people who gave up their time and willingly came to give evidence to the committee. As we have all heard, we went through an extremely truncated process, but nonetheless, even with that one day of public discussion, threshold issues of concern were raised, particularly around the issues of consultation and particularly regarding the 99-year lease process. We have had public expression of concern and requests, even pleas, from people in the community to try to get this process as right as it can be—and there is no doubt that the vote will go through and that the government will get their way and push through changes to the legislation—and where it can be done as positively and progressively as possible.

We have an organisation of the status and credibility of Reconciliation Australia, an organisation of which I am a very proud and long-term member, writing to every senator in this place suggesting a process that would include splitting the bill and allowing for a very minimal time for us to address the issues that have been raised. They are not new concerns, processes, worries or obstructions; they are the kinds of concerns we already know about and which have been debated in this place. It almost seems as though we need an interpreter at times, because we have a group of people saying one thing and another group saying exactly the opposite. In that kind of environment there is absolutely no way we can lay in place the bases of legislation that will succeed, because the common goal of all those involved is that this kind of process will be successful.

Reconciliation has been signed off by people like my friend Jackie Huggins, Mark Leibler and Mick Dodson, who have taken the initiative to contact all of us in this place—not just people suggested by lobbyists—to say that they want to see a short delay in order to address the issues of concern around consultation, real discussion with communities and interested organisations, including all those who have expressed interest, and the real need to reach a bipartisan resolution. That is one issue that has been acknowledged. I quote directly from a letter from Reconciliation Australia:

• Offer the opportunity to reach bipartisan resolution, acknowledged by all parties as essential if Australia is to make progress in improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

That would seem to be why we are all here—we share a common goal and we want to see good and progressive outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

When you listen to the evidence that came before our committee—and most of us quoted from that last week—you will hear that there was no blanket obstruction. There were people who saw that there needed to be evolution and change. But there was genuine concern not about the whole legislation but about particular elements. No matter how many times senators on the other side of this place get up and say that this particular bill has been the subject of years of discussion and debate, they cannot escape from the issue that not all elements of this bill have been on the table for that whole period. It would be very useful if we could just agree that and move on, but it is almost impossible to get that degree of agreement. There seems to be this need to impose upon all of us a particular version of exactly what has happened and a particular view of history.

All of us in this place know, no matter what our backgrounds are, that there is no perfect process of reconciliation and there is no perfect process of consultation. What there must be is a genuine attempt by all those involved to make it work as well as possible. It is of no surprise, having read the evidence that came before our committee and having read the report that was the subject of that committee, to know that there has not been absolute agreement from all those involved that this is the best way forward at this time. I would have thought that it probably would have been a good thing for all of us to take a step backwards and to identify what we could agree to that is there and that has been the subject of years of discussion.

We have the core players involved. The Indigenous community have accepted that this type of consultation has gone on on some aspects of the legislation. The Northern Territory government accepted in evidence, as directly quoted in our report, that there was a need for further consultation. As I said in the contribution I made here last week, it seems to me that we all have a responsibility to ensure that this consultation occurs and that it is not good enough to just say, ‘Yes, it has,’ or, ‘No, it hasn’t.’ We should be listening to the people who came to our very short inquiry and told all of us in the committee experience, knowing all the rules of committees—because these people are not unaware of the processes—that it had not occurred. The local consultation had not been done; people did not understand the aspects of all parts of the legislation. They accepted some but not all—in particular, the issue of the threshold lease. The 99-year lease arrangement was not fully understood. The implications of that were not fully understood by all those who would be affected by it. It is not the people in this chamber who are signing away, on a 99-year basis, the leasehold arrangements for their land and also—as we were told in evidence provided by the OIPC and the Northern Territory government—without a clear understanding of or rules about what was going to happen.

There was agreement that people were told that the actual land rights, the core aspect, would not be signed away—and that is as it should be—but there was genuine concern that was put to us in a very painful fashion that they did not understand all the implications of what the result of that was going to be, except, as we have been told by Senator Scullion a couple of times in this debate, that people would be able to get housing and that they would be able to access education. As I have said before, I would have thought they were basic rights and should not have to be the subject of the process.

But the particular point that we are discussing now is whether we can find something we can agree on, which would seem to me to be the best way forward. By splitting this bill we would be able to have some aspects on which we could vote together. We would be able to say to the communities, ‘We have heard your concerns.’ We would be able to say to Reconciliation Australia that we do want to respond to the last genuine plea that they made in their letter. I quote:

Reconciliation Australia would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government and Opposition parties to maximise the likelihood that amendments to the land rights legislation encourage positive outcomes for the benefit of the nation.

That would seem to me to be a positive outcome. We can move forward on this. Allow the amendment to split the bill to go through, take the time to ensure that those other issues are addressed and get something positive out of this debate rather than just once again saying, ‘I said, you said’, with a desperate need to find some common ground.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. I have listened very carefully to what my colleagues have said, and I have to say that the government is not convinced by the arguments which have been put forward. To throw some perspective on this, there are two points I would like to make. What are we actually talking about? In the calculations that I have received, the current best estimates involve about 0.01 per cent to 0.02 per cent of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. If, over time, the communities of 100 and more people join the scheme, the amount of Aboriginal land covered by township leases will still be 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land. That is what we are talking about.

People feel passionately about this topic, and I can understand that. People feel very passionately on both sides of this issue. They recognise that there are actions which governments have now got to take to address serious problems of Aboriginal disadvantage. There are actions that government can sensibly take to empower people. This bill is an important bill. To suggest there has not been consultation on this is wrong. There has been extensive consultation on this bill. Some of that consultation may well have gone on for nine years. Ultimately governments have got to be able to take action and make decisions. As somebody who has been in this chamber for a long time and has been a minister for almost 10 years, I know that consultation can be exceedingly helpful. Consultation can bring to the attention of governments issues of which they were not fully aware. But the truth is that, in the end, governments have got to make decisions. Consultation does not mean agreement; it means listening to what people have to say and taking account of their views. At the end of the day, people of good faith can differ. They will weigh up the various pros and cons of an issue and make a decision.

One of the things which struck me about this debate was that there was one issue that simply would not have been clear to many people who listened to the debate, particularly to the contributions of Senator Evans and others. This issue was drawn to our attention in a really excellent speech by Senator Scullion, one senator who has a great deal of local knowledge. The township leasing provisions in this bill are enabling legislation requested by the Northern Territory government. The Labor government of the Northern Territory raised the issue of township leasing, and this bill will enable the legislation of the Northern Territory government to go through. The Labor government of the Northern Territory will draft its own legislation. The Labor government of the Northern Territory will manage the scheme. It is intriguing that not one Labor senator was able to mention that issue. The fact that this came at the request of a Labor government was—to use a metaphor—the elephant in the chamber that no-one dared mention.

Delays will undoubtedly cause the Labor government in the Northern Territory problems. I have not received any letter from Clare Martin saying, ‘Delay the legislation, Senator Kemp.’ I have not received any request from your colleague the Chief Minister, Clare Martin, asking me to delay this bill or to agree to the splitting. But delay, as I understand it, would cause problems for the Labor government in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that that government wants to set up a township leasing entity by December, and any further delays in this bill would prevent that from happening.

Clearly the current provisions are not working for the benefit of Aboriginal people. To be quite frank, I think sticking with the status quo will help nobody. We have checked this bill with the Labor government of the Northern Territory, and they have not asked for this bill to be split. I do not want to labour the obvious political point there, but it does show that there are differing views on this issue. At the end of the day, someone has got to make decisions. Typically, governments have got to make decisions. Governments have got to be able to weigh up the information which has been brought before them.

A number of other points are worth drawing to the attention of the Senate. The issue of the 99-year leases was raised. I think Senator Moore may have indicated that the 99-year leasing scheme was added to the bill just prior to its introduction in this chamber. But I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that this important reform was announced almost one year ago, in October 2005. The 99-year leases are not compulsory acquisitions. The leases are voluntary. No-one is compelled to grant them. Someone—I think it was the social justice commissioner—claimed that 99-year leases will divide Aboriginal land into small parcels and lead to poverty, administrative costs and loss of land. The 99-year leases, I repeat, apply only to townships, not to the vast bulk of Aboriginal land. I think that people reading the Hansard, on reflection, will find a lot of the claims very overstated. The scheme involves the current slow, cumbersome process for getting a lease. It cuts red tape. The traditional owners retain their inalienable title, and other Aboriginal residents in townships who are not traditional owners can get a lease and move forward.

I have no doubt senators spoke with great sincerity in this debate. You only had to be in this chamber and to listen to the debate to understand the concerns that senators have. My advice is that these concerns are misplaced. They are issues that the government took into account, and in the end we decided that the way forward was to introduce this bill. So we will not be willing to delay the implementation of the important matters contained in this bill. We believe that the township leasing scheme will promote opportunities for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to improve their circumstances.

As I said, there will be no compulsion for Aboriginal people to agree to township leases. The scheme is voluntary. As Senator Scullion mentioned, discussions are already under way in relation to a number of township leases. There have been, I repeat, extensive consultations about the measures contained in the bill. The government has agreed to make amendments to the bill in both houses of parliament to take into account the views of stakeholders on the provisions of the bill.

I make this point: there will, of course, be continuing discussions with stakeholders in the course of implementing the measures contained in this bill. In relation to township leases, each lease will require separate and detailed negotiations with the traditional owners. Senator Crossin has indicated that a number of amendments were slipped through late in the piece. The truth is that the measures that Senator Crossin was referring to in her remarks were those that we announced almost a year ago. On that basis, I would have to say that Senator Crossin was simply not correct.

Senator Siewert referred to claims by the Northern Land Council that some township leasing provisions may be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act. This is incorrect. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is a special measure under the RDA, and parliament can amend special measures without being contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act. In addition—I repeat this, Senator Siewert—the township leasing scheme is voluntary, so those who do not wish to participate are not required to do so.

Senator Evans made what I thought was an uncharacteristic comment. Senator Evans frequently, but not always, seeks to take the high ground in debates. He said that some amendments which seemed to him to be unfair were rushed into the chamber and put undue pressure on the Labor Party. The advice I have is that the amendments we are putting today are minor and technical, apart from the removal of the five per cent rental cap which was announced some time ago. I know that Senator Evans would be mortified if I suggested that it was a cheap shot on his part; therefore, I will not say that. I certainly do not wish to mortify Senator Evans, but I do say that what he said was not correct.

Senator Crossin made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I invite her to re-read in the Hansard what she said. I suspect that the passion of Senator Crossin’s speech may have led her down paths where she did not want to go. Senator Crossin said that—and I am sure I am not misquoting her—Aboriginal people do not really want to own their own homes. Of course, she was making a general statement. Frankly, I do not think she could claim that she was speaking on behalf of all Indigenous people. There will be a variety of views amongst Indigenous people, as there are in the wider community. She launched a very emotional attack about Aboriginal land generally, and I think that Senator Crossin forgot that what we were talking about was the townships. As I said, the most generous forecast about the impact of this bill on Aboriginal land is: if, over time, all communities of 100 or more people were to join the scheme, the amount of Aboriginal land covered by township leases would still be 0.1 to 0.2 per cent.

Her emotional attack was, I have to say again, misleading. When we are talking about townships, of course, many of the people there are not traditional owners. Traditional owners will choose whether to agree or not to agree to a township lease. Senator Crossin also talked—very misleadingly, I think—about the government taking away property rights. Most residents of townships are not traditional owners. They are other Aboriginal people who currently do not have property rights in the area. The township leasing scheme will allow traditional owners to give these people property rights.

The debate, when you go into it, is far more complex than some of the statements which were made by members of the Labor Party, the Greens and the Democrats. Everyone wants to see what we can do to sensibly address Aboriginal disadvantage. I think it is the time for action. It is not the time for further delays. It is not the time to suggest that every consultation has got to amount to an agreement before it can move forward. Of course this government should listen to people and of course it does. One of the reasons why the government have been able to remain in office is that we are a consultative government and we are prepared to listen to people. The government will not be supporting the motion moved by Senator Evans.

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

I will make a few comments in reply on the motion to split the bill. In doing so, I express my disappointment that the government has not been able to see its way clear to agreeing to what I think is a very reasonable request to try to build some bipartisanship and some sense of trust on these issues before proceeding.

As we have seen from the debate in recent weeks, there is broad community support for the measure which we are moving today—not only from the other political parties in the chamber but also from Reconciliation Australia and from land councils, traditional owners and other people who take a keen interest in these issues and who care for the rights of Indigenous people and want to see progress made on economic development.

Early on, the government was keen to paint this debate as pro- or anti-economic development. I thank Senator Kemp for not seeking to perpetuate that myth. I think we have had quite a reasonable debate on these issues, and the point that I tried to make in my earlier contribution is that I do not think that people are that far apart on these issues. There does need to be some progress on township leasing and Indigenous land in the Northern Territory; in fact, a number of traditional owner groups have been working on such proposals for some time. It is the case that the Northern Territory Labor government is keen to make progress towards a policy of normalisation and town development in those communities. I have no difficulty with that. I make the point that Labor in this chamber and Labor federally will make their own judgements, and that does not mean that we always agree completely with state Labor governments. I have no difficulty in saying on the record that, on this occasion, there is some minor difference of emphasis over these issues.

What I want to say in summing up this debate is that essentially this is a question of respect: whether one proceeds with measures on Aboriginal land in a manner which provides respect to the traditional owners. I think their view, my view and the view of many people who take an interest in Indigenous affairs is that the government has not proceeded in a way that treats those people with respect. Again, it is a classic case of a government saying: ‘We know what’s right for you. We’re going to do things to you rather than do things with you.’ It has not worked in the past. I do not think it will work on this occasion, and it is the wrong approach. Whatever happens with these particular amendments—I accept that they are not the be-all and end-all of debate on Indigenous affairs in this country—it is the style, the lack of respect shown to Indigenous landowners, that will leave a lasting impression. It will leave attitudes that will persist for many years. It will disappoint Aboriginal people in the way they are treated by government. I think they will be disappointed in the way this parliament has not been able to assist them in this measure.

I only hoped that the government and/or some of its backbenchers might have seen fit to see that the path they were going down was not the path by which to proceed. It appears that, unfortunately, that is not the case and we will proceed with the bill today. The government has a lot of legislative time on its hands because the three days that were set aside for the migration bill are now available for other matters. Maybe we will debate this for three or four days just to keep Senator Kemp on his mettle. I do think it is a shame that we have not been able to do better and that the government has not seen fit to listen to the advice of the many people who take an interest in this, in particular the views of the traditional owners. At the end of the day, people need to understand that this bill seeks to deal with Indigenous people’s property rights, and the government has not consulted with them sufficiently or properly about that.

Senator Kemp may or may not be right that it only represents 0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, but it is the land on which Indigenous people live. Senator Kemp, it is their land that you seek to interfere with. It is their land, on which they live. I suspect that if I came to your suburban block in Melbourne and suggested to you that I was going to rearrange the arrangements by which you are allowed to own and enjoy your household and its land—I am assuming you are not living in a flat—you would expect me to treat you with respect and to consult with you widely. And I think you would expect to have some say over what the outcome was.

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

I do. And I’d have the option to say yes or no.

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

You would, but not if we had a very unequal power relationship. As I made clear when I spoke to this issue earlier, my concern, which Senator Scullion reinforced, is also that people will be made to bargain for basic rights of citizenship in order to comply with these leases. I think that is the wrong way to go. Minister Brough has already made it clear in a couple of his statements and press releases that this is to be the case. It reflects what is beginning to be a very unfortunate manner that he is adopting in relation to Indigenous affairs—brushing aside any concerns and acting in a way that is quite arrogant and dismissive of Aboriginal views. I respect the fact that he is keen to get things done, I respect the fact that he is bringing some energy to a portfolio that has lacked energy in recent years, but I think he has to learn to show some respect.

As I said, that is the main concern I have: the lack of respect shown to Indigenous people. There will be a fight over the detail both at the committee stage and during implementation in the Northern Territory. I think people have made reasonable contributions to the debate. I do not think people’s views are that far apart, other than the serious concern for the way the government has gone about this. We will be moving some amendments in the committee stage, but, clearly, given the government’s attitude to this, they are not interested in hearing from us on those issues. They have not been prepared to listen to those people with expertise in the area who have suggested they might consider a more measured approach.

I urge the Senate to support the motion to split the bill. I think it is the way forward. It is the way that would recognise most appropriately Aboriginal ownership of the land. It would also bring respect to this parliament and the way it handles the matter. Without that, I think we will again be seen to be telling Aboriginal people what to do with their land without proper consultation. It disappoints me that we are going down this path again.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion (Senator Chris Evans’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to.