Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Bartlett’s speech.

Leave granted.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was established with cross-party support in 1976, enabling communal Aboriginal land ownership in the Territory under Australian law. The land title is inalienable and equivalent to freehold title, but is held communally, reflecting the nature of Aboriginal land ownership.

The Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act was subjected to major amendments last year which, amongst other things, enabled 99-year leases to be established on townships on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory.

This Bill before us enables the Commonwealth to establish a township leasing entity in the event that the NT Government has not established a township leasing entity of their own to manage the leases.

The Democrats expressed very strong concern at the time that legislation was pushed through this Senate that there had been completely inadequate consultation with Indigenous peoples throughout the Territory who would be affected by these changes. The Senate Inquiry process into that Bill was totally inadequate – another in a long and sad line of acts of contempt from this government towards the Senate which continues to degrade the credibility of the Senate Committee process. Indeed, some months later, I recall hearing a speech in a public forum from one of the participants in that disgracefully brief Inquiry process, seriously questioning whether contributing to Senate Committee Inquiries was a worthwhile use of their time in the future.

The ability of Aboriginal landholders to meaningfully participate in that Inquiry process was minimal, despite the fact that it directly affected some of their most basic rights. The process was so bad that even Minister Mal Brough later conceded that it was less than ideal. Despite those widely admitted flaws and inadequacies with the previous legislation, this time around the government has prevented any sort of Senate Committee inquiry at all, even though there is no urgency to pass this Bill prior to August.

The continuing refusal of this government to allow proper public scrunity of their legislation and open public engagement and consultation with affected Indigenous people is simply inexcusable. The Democrats are on record in this Senate as far back as August 2005 calling for proper consultation to occur before changes are made, but this has not happened. We are on record saying that we would consider potential changes to Land Rights if it could be shown it may be of benefit to Indigenous people, but that this “should not and must not be done without the full involvement of consultation with and subsequent agreement of the Aboriginal people.”

To the Democrats the big issue here is not whether 99 year leases as envisaged in the Act and the Bill before may be beneficial in some circumstances. It is that there has been an almost total, and one would have to say apparently deliberate, attempt to exclude Aboriginal people from involvement in this process, other than trying to persuade – some would say blackmail – them into agreeing to a lease at the end of the whole process.

The Democrats were very critical of the new leasing scheme contained in the 2006 amendments due to concerns about a lack of protection against unintended consequences. In particular, the head leasing and sub leasing provisions may mean that traditional owners relinquish control and cannot prevent inappropriate commercial development on sub leased land.

In this case, the bill seeks to facilitate a lease by establishing a Commonwealth office of Executive Director of Township Leasing (in the absence of NT Government action). The fact that there is no legislated requirement for the Executive Director to undertake ongoing consultation or negotiation with Traditional Owners or Land Councils regarding management of their land once the headlease is agreed is of significant concern.

Of extra concern to the Democrats is the fact that, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, the costs of the Executive Director of Township Leasing will be met for up to $15 million, to be provided over five years from 2006-07 to 2010-2011 and that the funds will be sourced from the Aboriginals Benefit Account (ABA). This Account contains the equivalent of mining royalties for mining carried out on Aboriginal land. The money is already there to be spent for the benefit of Aboriginal people. Whatever else one might think about the 99 year lease proposals, the fact that the government is covering the costs of the process from money that has already been set aside to be spent on the benefit of Aboriginal people is a complete disgrace.

If the Commonwealth Government is so keen to trial this 99 year lease process that it will bulldoze through major changes to the immensely important Land Rights Act without properly consulting the Aboriginal people who are directly affected, the very least they could do is to cover the costs out of consolidated revenue, rather than take it from money already set aside that is meant to be spent for Aboriginal people.

We must put a pause in this process until there is proper consultation. The government may try to say that this is urgent, but I would be very very doubtful that any lease would be ready to be agreed to before August. 99 years is more than a lifetime, particularly for Aboriginal people, given the disgraceful fact that they have an average life expectancy 17 years less than other Australians. If we are to try this pathway and process, let’s do all we can to make sure we get it right.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The main purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 is to establish an office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing to enter into and administer township leases on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The office is intended to operate in the interim until the Northern Territory government establishes its own entity to hold a 99-year headlease. The office would hold the 99-year headlease and grant subleases in accordance with the headlease conditions and provisions of section 19A of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 contained amendments to introduce a 99-year township proposal. The model proposes that traditional owners, through their land council representatives, grant a 99-year headlease over their township. The headlease would be held by a Commonwealth or territory entity that would then be empowered to grant subleases. The entity would pay capped rent to the traditional owners and be obliged to act in accordance with the conditions set out in the headlease.

Labor continues to have concerns about the 99-year leasing model provided for under section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which passed through the parliament in September 2006. Although the federal government has signed a memorandum of understanding to enter into a 99-year lease with the Nguiu community in the Tiwi Islands, there will be a legal challenge by the Tiwi Islands Local Government Association. The local territory member, Marion Scrymgour, is strongly concerned about the deal. This is a politically divisive issue in the Northern Territory and it is being compounded by the federal government’s failure to provide any details or to facilitate an informed debate about the proposals.

The Northern Territory government was in the process of negotiating a form of entity that meets the interests and concerns of the traditional owners. The traditional owners are concerned about the level of control that they will exercise over future development on their land once they sign a 99-year lease. This process has stalled as a result of the opposition from within the Northern Territory government. Although this entity is supposed to operate only in the interim, it is possible that it will operate in the long term, in which case it may be inconsistent with the models negotiated by the Northern Territory government.

Funding for this office comes from the Aboriginal Benefits Account—which of course is Indigenous money—yet this model has not been negotiated with Indigenous people. Senator Crossin will no doubt provide details of how it is going to impact in the Northern Territory and on concerns that she has been hearing about in her close work with the communities that are most affected. We can only assume that this is just one more step in the process of disenfranchising many Indigenous communities across the Territory.

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

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007 will bring a further change to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It is an amendment that allows township leasing—or so we have been led to believe. It will establish the office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing. This will enable communities to enter into township leases, which will be managed by the appointed executive director.

These leases will enable Aboriginal landowners to issue 99-year leases over their land, supposedly to improve the chances of economic development. The origins of this bill date from last year under the first tranche of changes that concerned the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Act of last year. We saw the introduction of section 19A—as opposed to the current section 19 under the act. Section 19 under the act allows for individual lots, plots or parcels of land to be released and leased, and last year we saw an extension of that to include whole townships.

If people want to get a clear look at the impact of this legislation and at the way it has been handled by this government, they should look at some of the fine contributions by my colleagues in the House of Representatives earlier this week. I refer in particular to people like Ms Macklin and the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon. This legislation impacts on Mr Snowdon’s electorate singularly and solely. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to the operation of the land rights act. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions from Mr Martin Ferguson and Mr Peter Garrett. I think they are a fine compilation of exactly how people feel about the way Indigenous people are being treated by this government.

This is not about us objecting to moving Indigenous people forward economically and it is not about us standing in the way of people who may want to embark on different sorts of economic development. This is about ensuring that Indigenous people are with you and are consulted and that there is informed consent for these changes. I want to emphasise that point about informed consent in relation to these changes and what they mean. Look at the contribution of the member for Solomon, Mr David Tollner, who looks after solely Darwin and Palmerston and so would have had no or very little interaction with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In his role he would not have gone to any remote communities to speak to people about this. His knowledge is minimal. The contribution by him in this regard was extremely disappointing.

What we have here is a sign of a government that is absolutely desperate to prove that it has been able to do something for Indigenous people before the coming election. In relation to the Tiwi Islands, where the basis of this legislation emanates from, we have a situation where in the 2006 budget $100 million was to be allocated by this government for Indigenous housing and for implementing this leasing plan. Twelve months have now elapsed—I will go into this in a bit more detail in a moment—and nothing has been done. Suddenly we have Minister Brough—or ‘Minister Bluff’ as some people in the Northern Territory might want to call him—running around like a rabbit in the spotlight trying to implement in the Tiwi Islands a housing strategy or a land leasing strategy that is vastly different from those in Wadeye and in Alice Springs. There is no overall strategy here and there is no overall forward thinking. This is a sign of a government that is desperate to prove that it has been able to achieve something for Indigenous people.

And people in the Territory are resisting. People in Alice Springs are strongly resisting this minister’s ‘take it, take all of it or take nothing’ attitude. You do it on his terms or you do it on no terms: ‘You must do it in the way I want you to do it and the way I, as a non-Indigenous person in this country, perceive you should do it.’ According to Minister Brough: ‘The way you ought to develop your economic prospects is my way or no way.’ But Indigenous people are not silly. Indigenous people are quite intelligent. As Jenny Macklin said at the start of her speech on this legislation in the House of Representatives, where she quoted from the song From Little Things Big Things Grow, Indigenous people in the Territory have a history of waiting patiently—not aggressively, as this minister wishes to go about his business, but very patiently—until they get what they want, on their terms. So people in the Territory will sit back and wait and watch and listen. They are not about to be bullied or coerced into signing up to something they do not seriously believe in and do not understand.

I think if you look at the contributions to the debate on this legislation from non-government people in both Houses, they are about trying, again—and I think I do this nearly every month down here in this place—to encourage this government to sit down and negotiate with Indigenous people about exactly what it is they want.

The 99-year leases have been, and remain, a highly contentious issue in the Northern Territory. This bill specifies the functions, the terms and conditions of the office of Executive Director of Township Leasing. Let us go back at this point and have a bit of history. The history is that, at some point, someone came up with the idea that one way we might be able to improve economic outcomes for Indigenous people—and let us not go into an analysis of this federal government’s absolute neglect of the support needed for that to occur—was to talk about their land: ‘Let’s assimilate and normalise Indigenous people so that their lot in life is to buy a little quarter-acre block with a little house on it and a bit of a fence.’ That is so unlike Indigenous people’s view of economic success and economic outcomes. But, nevertheless, this is a government that believes in assimilation for Indigenous people—that is, ‘Let’s make them all like us’—and not self-determination—that is, ‘Let’s empower them and educate them and provide them with the knowledge and skills to actually determine for themselves where they might want to go with all of this.’

So one of these ideas was, ‘We’ll lease a whole community.’ That went a bit further when amendments were made last year to the Northern Territory land rights act. At that time the Northern Territory government was going to look at setting up an entity—I suppose it would be a statutory authority, in a sense—that would be the managing authority for this township. I have sought constantly, through questions on notice and questions at estimates, to find out exactly what this entity might look like, how it would operate and what its relationship would be to the town councils in these communities. Yet I still cannot get any comprehensive answers. I get answers, but they are not comprehensive answers about how exactly this is going to happen. So the Northern Territory government decided to embark on a range of consultations and to take its time. But of course we have a federal minister now who will not take time. The value of his time is of the utmost, and it has to be done in his time and no-one else’s time. And so this legislation has now been drafted, and has been rammed through both houses of parliament within four days.

Has the legislation been provided to one Indigenous person in the Territory? No. Has it been explained to any Indigenous person in the Territory? No. I even had land councils this week asking me to email them a copy of the legislation—the very four entities concerned in the Northern Territory. They include the Anindilyakwa Land Council at Groote Eylandt. I am sure the Tiwi Land Council has got an idea of what is in it. But the Northern Land Council and Central Land Council have not had an opportunity to thoroughly examine this legislation. They have had no opportunity to have input to a Senate inquiry into this legislation. That, I think, is quite astounding in terms of the rights of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.

I do not believe there is any urgency about rushing this legislation through before we rise next week. And a government that was genuinely concerned about engaging Indigenous people, informing Indigenous people and letting them have their say might actually have flicked this legislation off to the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and allowed us to go to places like Alice Springs or Darwin, Port Keats-Wadeye or Bathurst Island to consult people about what they thought of this concept and how that entity might be set up. But this government operates behind a veil of secrecy when it comes to Indigenous people. So there will be no Senate inquiry. That is not allowed—not on. ‘On my terms or on no terms’ is the way this minister conducts Indigenous affairs in this country.

We could have easily done that inquiry over the winter recess. It probably would have been a good time to go to the Territory; it is the dry season and we do not have minus temperatures up there, so people might have welcomed the change. And we could have easily reported on the first day back in August and dealt with this legislation then. We know that when Senate committees look at legislation there is an opportunity for us to change that legislation for the better. But the Senate committee has not had the chance to do that. And that, I think, is another example of this government’s belligerent attitude when it comes to the future of Indigenous people.

I want to go to a quote that we found in putting together some speaking notes on this legislation. It comes from a very eminent person in this country, an Indigenous person, Professor Larissa Behrendt. She writes regularly for a national Indigenous newspaper. In commenting on this government and the minister in the National Indigenous Times on 31 May this year she said that the minister’s:

... approach to Indigenous affairs has been one where he holds himself out as having the answers ... if only those blacks would see the wisdom of his ways.

She goes on to say, as to what really needs to happen—and I quote from her article—that ‘the truth of the matter is that Aboriginal people need to be saved’ from Minister Brough. Patricia Karvelas wrote an article, in the Australian of 5 June, headed ‘Indigenous policy is assimilationist’, in which former Family Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Evatt warns that such a policy could ‘destroy Aboriginal culture’. She went on to warn of the dangers implicit in the Prime Minister’s rigid ideas of mainstreaming Indigenous programs with the end result being ‘the eventual disappearance of Aboriginal tradition and culture’.

I do not have an awful lot of time this morning to contribute to this debate. While some people might think 20 minutes is enough, I could probably speak for much longer than that. There are many things that I want to put down on the record, but the main point that I want to get across today is this. If this is going to be the way of the future for Indigenous townships and if Indigenous people actually want this to occur—and I am not convinced yet that is the case—the fact is Indigenous people have not been fully informed about how this is going to operate. When people actually sign on the dotted line to lease their land for 99 years, it will be forever—and I do not think the people have quite realised that. That is why we have Willy Tilmouth and the Tangentyere council fighting with this minister at the moment over the reformation of the town camps in Alice Springs. This minister is suggesting that they ought to give up the special purpose lease for 99 years but Tangentyere council is saying that is just a little bit too long, let us go for 20 years and let us sit down and talk about this. But at the end of the day, according to this minister, it is his way or no way.

In relation to the town camps, this minister makes an announcement in May 2006. He takes over a year to come up with a formal proposal, gives it to people in Alice Springs in May and gives them 30 days to make up their mind. I thought Martin Ferguson very cleverly highlighted in the House this week that when we talk about airports being leased for 99 years we do not give the corporations involved less than a month to look at the details. But that is what this government is expecting Indigenous people to accept. When Indigenous people say, ‘Wait a minute; we need a bit more time here,’ this government minister says: ‘Well, I’m going to take the money off the table. You play by my rules or you play by no rules. I will take my bat and ball and go home.’ Quite frankly, Indigenous people are quite used to this from this government. But they are also prepared to sit around and wait and make sure that at the end of the day what they perceive as being important in their life is what is finally negotiated and achieved.

In relation to the Tiwi Land Council, during estimates I put quite a number of questions on notice, through Senator Scullion to Minister Brough, and got this amazing answer that this was really none of my business, it was not my responsibility and I would have to ask the Tiwi Land Council myself. Yet I was able to get evidence that there are many times when questions on notice are actually put through the minister—that is the only way that you can do it in this place—and the minister actually flicks those off to the statutory authority and responds, ‘I’ve sent these questions to this authority and on their behalf here are the answers.’ Every time we have tried to get detailed information about this it has been blocked. We either get no answers to questions or questions are not answered. There was a stunning display of buckpassing in estimates only a few weeks ago where everything I asked of OIPC in the Community Affairs estimates was flicked to IBA, Indigenous Business Australia, who will be handling some of this leasing at Wadeye. When I asked IBA the questions, they then said: ‘We can’t give you the answers. That is actually OIPC.’

I do not think that was incompetence on their part. I believe it is a deliberate strategy. What is happening here is that people buck-pass and avoid answering questions at Senate estimates. You might laugh, Senator Scullion, but I saw members from IBA, having been sent back into the other room, quickly briefing people from FaCSIA before I went back to FaCSIA to re-ask the questions. A conference—discussion and conferring—was going on. So, yes, I do believe that there are problems in terms of openness and transparency.

Let me give you just one example of this in relation to how scattergun this government’s approach is to housing. Four houses have been built out at Wadeye, two at Nama and two at Wudapuli. I asked questions about the houses. I asked why there was no external provision for each house. They had no shed, no driveway, no verandah, no outside area to sit on and even no concrete around the outside. IBA told me they did not construct those because they were never asked to do so by FaCSIA. You have to ask yourself: what government would build a four-bedroom house and plonk it in the dirt without any external amenities for people? What sort of strategy is that?

Then we discovered that the lease that this government have asked people at Nama and Wudapuli to sign actually breaches the Northern Territory tenancy act. Why is that? Because the Northern Territory tenancy act only applies to certain land leasing arrangements, and Nama and Wudapuli leasing arrangements fall outside of that. So these people have been asked to sign a tenancy agreement that really under the law is highly contestable. So what sort of strategy is this? This is supposedly from a federal government that believes it is doing the right thing by Indigenous people by improving their economic lot and their economic outcomes. We hear a lot of rhetoric about how this is going to improve people’s economic outcomes. That may well be so—and we do not stand in the way of any sort of progress which actually takes people to the next level—but it has got to be done in consultation and with a little bit more foresight and planning and strategy than I currently see from this government.

Nobody can tell me what the total value of the township of Nguiu actually is; nobody in this government can tell me that. No-one can give me a business plan and a business case as to why leasing the whole of the township of Nguiu is going to be the best thing rather than leasing it lot by lot. No-one can show me what economic long-term value these people are going to get out of this. They tell me that it is going to give them economic long-term value and it is going to improve their lot in life, but I have not seen it on paper. If I was the director of Wesfarmers or Rio Tinto, I would not be buying into this because I do not believe the economics stack up—and the economics have never been done by this government.

This legislation is not supported by us because it is legislation that has not been done in consultation with Indigenous people. It is not about changes to the land rights act that involves their informed consent, and we will not be supporting it. (Time expired)

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

Nor will the Greens be supporting the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. We opposed the changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act last year that set in motion this process. We were extremely concerned then and opposed those changes, as we will oppose these. Yesterday, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, released his latest report on native title and also the latest social justice report. I would like to start by quoting him, because his words go to the nub of these issues. The media release on the Native title report 2006 says:

The Native Title Report 2006 also examines the Australian Government’s economic reform agenda for Indigenous land, specifically the 99-year lease scheme that aims to provide home ownership opportunities on Indigenous land.

“The problem with this scheme is that Indigenous land owners have to give up their land rights if they want to access new homes and low interest mortgages,” Commissioner Calma said.

“Ultimately the lease and home ownership initiative is more a debt creation scheme - one which threatens our hard fought-for land rights. Unfortunately, the majority of remote Indigenous Australians can’t currently get mortgages because they are either unemployed, or they are recipients of benefits or precarious income that does not support mortgage repayments.”

The core belief on which the notion of the 99-year headlease process is built is that individual private rights will allow Indigenous Australians to accumulate assets and participate in the market economy. The fundamental belief of the government is that individual property rights will be the answer to everything. As Mal Brough said last May:

It is individual property rights that drive economic development. The days of the failed collective are over.

The cornerstone of all recent government reforms on homeownership and economic development for Indigenous communities is the belief in the individual as an agent in economic self-development. We are entirely justified in characterising this as an ideological belief because, on the government’s own statements, it is a belief that is held in the absence of any evidence based on domestic success. It is also in stark contrast and opposition to the knowledge and experience gained overseas. In the United States, Canada and New Zealand, and most recently Kenya, the conversion of communal hands to individual leasing arrangements has not led to any noticeable improvement in the creation of wealth. As the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner said when I questioned him in estimates last May:

What has been seen in all of those countries has in fact been a loss of communal lands when individuals have sold off their land to outside interests and, therefore, once that process is started, it is a concern.

Going to the Tiwi situation, he said:

... a significant concern is in relation to the permit system that is being reviewed at the moment. Tiwi people are concerned that if the 15 per cent of homes that are reported to be able to be sold to outside interests are sold, if the permit system has been withdrawn, then what is to stop any of that 15 per cent inviting people over to traverse all the lands and what controls do the Tiwi people then have over their own lands?

The evidence from overseas is that, when land is converted to individual leasing, the trade-off of communal title does not deliver the expected wealth creation or improvement in living standards. At the same time, these communities lose control of their land, and the strength and cohesion of their communities suffers as a result. We are concerned that this will ultimately lead to worse outcomes in health and wellbeing. As Tom Calma says in the Native title report 2006 that was released yesterday:

In many Indigenous townships these leases are currently operating on communal lands. The benefits of these leases are that traditional owners retain decisionmaking control over the land. Under the Government’s 99 year headlease plan, the ‘established entity’ will make the decisions affecting all future development on Indigenous land.

So what will happen under the government’s proposal is that communities will lose control over their lands and another entity will make those decisions. What has been seen overseas is that this process does not work.

Put simply, we believe that the 99-year lease scheme is in fact the AWA process of Indigenous Australia. But while the benefits of individual workplace agreements for individual workers may be dubious—and many of us believe they are highly dubious—when the concept of the individual as the focus of economic development is applied to Indigenous communities, and particularly remote ones, where the opportunities for such development are already severely limited and there is no evidence that it will deliver properly or deliver the outcomes the government claims, we believe that this will be yet another unmitigated disaster.

This is another manifestation of the dysfunction of leadership and misunderstanding of Indigenous policy development that has dogged this government over the last decade. This latest social experiment is shoehorning the ideology of naive individualism and economic rationalism onto our cultural landscape. It is destined to go the same way as the failed COAG trials and the mess that has been made of the whole-of-government approach to shared responsibility agreements, for example, where it is continually the government side of the equation that fails to deliver on its promises and any show of responsibility. This was best summarised by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold, last July. When talking about the failure of the government’s ambitious Indigenous reform agenda, he said:

I am aware that, for some 15 years as a public administrator, too much of what I have done on behalf of government for the very best of motives has had the very worst of outcomes. I (and hundreds of my well-intentioned colleagues, both black and white) have contributed to the current unacceptable state of affairs, at first unwittingly and then, too often, silently and despairingly.

These comments are mirrored in the findings of the Gray report that looked at the failed COAG trials and the disaster that has led to Wadeye. The Social justice report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, released just yesterday at the same time as the Native title report, sums up the attitude and culture that is behind this failing. In particular, it looks at some of the issues under the shared responsibility agreements. It then goes on to look at some of the issues that manifest themselves in the proposal for 99-year leases.

The report highlights the definition of community where it talks about making communities sign SRAs. They are being made to sign SRAs at community level rather than at family level. The social justice commissioner points out that the focus is on community, despite extensive literature about the artificiality and problematic nature of major Indigenous settlements in Australia, saying that these are artificial constructs which have brought together disparate clans and language groups. He then goes on to talk about the fact that it comes down to the government trying to progress an objective of so-called normalising Indigenous communities, which is clearly the basis of where the government are trying to take the 99-year lease process—that is, they are trying to artificially create so-called communities and normalise leases because that is what they think will lead to economic development. The commissioner says that such attempts and the 99-year leases are just the latest incarnations of this objective and that it will almost certainly have the opposite effect to what is desired. The changes are likely to reinforce the artificiality and alienating nature of these communities and will add to their social dysfunction.

The rights of traditional owners will be nullified. Regardless of compensation arrangements or rents, this is unlikely to work towards the development of harmonious communities. At the heart of these arrangements is a failure to engage the community and a failure to listen to them, as much as is a failure to see beyond the blinkers of ideology. There are many quotes in the social justice commissioner’s report that highlight the concerns that HREOC has about the mindless ideology that is driving the 99-year lease process—that it is not based on any evidence in Australia that it is going to work and it is not justified by evidence from overseas. Perhaps we would accept the concept more if evidence from overseas showed that this has worked, but in fact it has not worked overseas and it is not going to work in Australia.

The social justice commissioner’s report also says that it is a culture of control that perhaps unintentionally disempowers Indigenous communities; it is a culture that is not based on respecting partnership. Indigenous peoples are treated as problems to be solved, not as partners and active participants in creating a positive life vision for generations of Indigenous people still to come. The greatest irony of this is that it fosters a passive system of policy development and service delivery while at the same time criticises Indigenous peoples for being passive recipients of government services. The commissioner talked specifically about the lack of consultation and the way this legislation is being forced through this place. There has been no consultation with the local community, as we heard from Senator Crossin. Great concerns are still being raised in the Northern Territory about the lack of consultation, the process this sets up and the fact that it is taking away control from traditional owners and putting it to an entity. These concepts were never adequately discussed. They were not discussed when the land rights changes went through last year. While elements of that legislation were discussed in the community, those particular elements were not; they were pushed through very quickly without adequate consultation, in the same way that these are being pushed through quickly without adequate consultation.

An example of the flawed nature of the thinking on this and the way this is being rushed through—and I touched on this the other day when I talked about the Greens concerns that this legislation is not being sent to a committee—is the issue around the money coming out of the account, the ABA, to pay for the leases. It is quite obvious that the government has not thoroughly thought this concept through. Five million dollars is coming out of the ABA and will go to traditional owners. The government could not even tell me—and Senator Scullion was there and knows this—what would happen with the $5 million once it had been collected from the lessees. After a number of hours, the answer came back that it goes to the entity to fund the entity to facilitate more headleases in other communities.

The Greens are deeply concerned about the fact that, for a start, it seems that no-one knew what was going on and that it had not been thought through. The bigger point is that this is being paid for out of the ABA. So that account is being used to undermine traditional owners’ decision-making powers. That is not what we understood the ABA was set up for in the first place. We very strongly object to that and I know that Aboriginal communities in the NT object to that because I have been told by them that they object to that. They do not believe that the money was put there for that. The money should be for the benefit of Indigenous communities to help them in their economic development. As I outlined earlier, we do not believe that this ideological approach will lead to economic development.

As Tom Calma points out, Indigenous people are likely to end up with a massive load of debt because they will not have the capacity to repay the loans. They will not necessarily have the capacity to get loans in the first place. Following on from that, it is highly likely that in a lot of these communities, with housing costs being so expensive, they will not be able to resell the houses anyway. So they are being forced into a process of giving up control of their land for very dubious economic circumstances. They are being forced into it because they are being normalised. No-one has actually asked them if they want to be normalised. Overseas, giving up community control has proved to be dysfunctional; it has proved not to work and it has massive problems, yet we use this flawed belief to force people to give up community control to get so-called non-essential services. However, I would argue—as I have argued previously—that these services are essential services and that people should not be forced into giving up control of their land and decision making over their land for essential services.

I have not touched on a lot of the issues as they relate specifically to the Tiwi example. I think Senator Crossin has covered that. I will just briefly touch on this and say that I asked the social justice commissioner about Tiwi specifically. He was invited up there by the local community because they were expressing concerns about the process in Tiwi. He raised in estimates a number of concerns the local community continue to have about the proposals for their agreement. As I highlighted the other day, there was a public announcement that an agreement had been signed not long ago when in fact that was not true—it was a memorandum of understanding; and further details are still being worked out.

I do not believe that Aboriginal communities have been given a full and frank assessment of what this process means in the long term. For example, they have not been given any analysis from overseas of what impact this type of process has delivered overseas. I do not believe there has been an adequate assessment of what so-called private ownership of houses really does deliver to Aboriginal communities. This is a flawed process built on ideology with no foundation in fact. It has not worked overseas. It is not likely to work here. This is about pursuing an ideological agenda that I believe will not work. It will further disempower Aboriginal communities and further entrench disadvantage rather than help them.

When the government were looking at the community in Alice Springs, because they were so ideologically focused on those communities in the town camps giving up control of their leases, they would not give them $60 million to address the issue of housing. If the government were genuinely concerned about the state of that housing, they would not have taken the ‘take no prisoners’ approach to bargaining that they did. They were inflexible. They said, ‘Take it or leave it.’ That is not a genuine approach to consultation and negotiation with the community. That is the expression of their ideological pursuit of their objectives. It is a case of, ‘It is our way or no way.’ I do not think that is the appropriate way that we should be working with Aboriginal Australians in the 21st century. This is bad policy, and I believe the Senate should reject it.

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

I thank senators for their contribution to the debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is an iconic piece of legislation, and any amendments to it always generate interest. But you would be forgiven for thinking that those opposite were continuing the debate that occurred 12 months ago when the substantive amendments to the act were passed by the Australian parliament. Those amendments enabled the creation of an entity to hold headleases over Aboriginal townships. The amendments also made provision for the Commonwealth to establish such an entity if required. This bill proposes a very simple amendment to establish the Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing to manage the Commonwealth entity. It is a simple implementation step. However, the senators opposite used this debate to merely repeat untrue claims about the effects of the long-term leasing of townships on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. It has been claimed that townships leasing alters the principle of communal ownership of Aboriginal land and that the townships leasing scheme is being implemented without the consent of the traditional owners. That is simply not true.

The township leasing scheme was a policy put forward by the Northern Territory Labor government. It preserves inalienable and communal underlying title. Township leasing provides for all residents in towns on Aboriginal land to have a secure tenure, but only where traditional owners agree to a township lease. This is a voluntary scheme implemented with the consent of traditional owners. It provides real ownership to residents for the first time. The Australian government has completed negotiation with the traditional owners of Nguiu in the Tiwi Islands. They told Minister Brough that, for the first time, they would have real property rights. They will have a say about the development in town and they will get economic returns. Maintaining that the land rights act already provided for leasing in the town is misleading. These towns have not been provided with secure tenure over 30 years of land rights. The system was complicated, it was not working and it needed to be fixed.

It has been suggested that if a Commonwealth entity were established, it would be confusing if the Northern Territory government at some later date established its own entity. The government has made it clear that it is only going down the path of establishing the Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing because the Northern Territory government has failed to deliver on its commitment to establish a township leasing entity. It was the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory who undertook to have this entity in place by 2006. She did not deliver. If, and when, a Northern Territory entity is in place, the government will move to transfer headleases to that entity and the Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing will be abolished. There will be no duplication. It has been said that the Australian government has acted too quickly and that the Northern Territory government’s position is to negotiate on a model for the township leasing entity. Actions speak louder than words. The Australian government has listened to the traditional owners of Nguiu who wanted a statutory office and has delivered that in this bill.

Senators opposite have claimed that we have made land tenure reform a condition of funding basic services. I am sorry, Senator Siewert, but that is simply not true. Basic services are not part of the negotiations; the negotiations involve providing services above and beyond what would typically be provided. These reforms are an important part of our strategy to tackle overcrowding in remote Indigenous communities. We are providing $1.6 billion over the next four years to address the problem.

The new strategy will replace the failed Community Housing and Infrastructure Program. Labor is so out of touch that it believes that CHIP was a good program. There have been numerous complaints of nepotism, mismanagement and waste through the old ATSIC community housing model that those opposite put so much faith in. Over the last five years, despite spending around a billion dollars on this old ATSIC housing program, housing stock increased by only 2 per cent or 471 homes and there has been a marked deterioration in the state of that housing stock. The old ATSIC program was an unmitigated failure and we will abolish it and add more funding to create a more effective program. Home ownership will be an important part of the Australian government’s housing strategy and we have provided over $100 million for the new Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program, which is tailored to meet the needs of remote communities who opt for land tenure reform. Our approach to Indigenous affairs is about making a difference, not following the tired and failed policies of the past.

Those that speak against the bill seem to want things to stay just as they are. Local Aboriginal people are saying just the opposite to that. The traditional owners of Nguiu were the first to take advantage of this new opportunity. The traditional owners will retain underlying title to the land and receive formal compensation from other people using the land. This will assist them to establish an economic base. Residents will be able to buy a house or start a small business and be part of the broader Australian economy. The new arrangements will allow the Tiwi entrepreneurial capacity to flourish for the benefit of future generations.

The negotiating process for Nguiu started formally in December last year. Those opposite say that an agreement has not been reached yet. Again, that is simply not correct. On 9 May, Minister Mal Brough was advised by the traditional owners of Nguiu that they agreed to the package offered by the Australian government. The next step is for the Tiwi Land Council to follow the statutory requirements required before the lease can be executed. Other communities will recognise the benefits in time and will follow the lead of the Tiwi Islanders.

This scheme is the only way that people in these communities will be able to own their own home. Senator Crossin has said before that she believes that Aboriginal people do not want to own their own homes. She should not make such absurd generalisations; it is offensive. While Labor’s rhetoric on Indigenous affairs suggests new ways forward, their policies are simply stuck in the past. They do not want to reform land tenure which has kept Aboriginal people in poverty. They would deny Aboriginal people the opportunity to own their own homes and they would prefer not to talk about hard issues like domestic violence and child abuse. Labor does not want to deal directly with local Aboriginal people; they would set up a new government constructed representative body, just like the failed ATSIC, to speak for them. These are policies of the past.

Senators opposite quote selectively from those that oppose these reforms. Of course there will be those that do not want change. But, unlike Labor, we do not expect Aboriginal citizens to arrive at a consensus on every issue when we do not expect the same from other Australians. Sadly, Labor does not even bother to quote the positive statements from the people that actually own the land: the traditional owners of Nguiu. Those opposite prefer to deal with their mates who want to preserve the status quo. Senator Crossin in particular has been doing her best to unravel those reforms. She wants government to keep control of Aboriginal people rather than to allow them the sorts of choices that she and other Australians take for granted. After more than 30 years of land rights, the government is giving Aboriginal people real property rights in their townships. It is time for those opposed to this scheme to step aside and let Aboriginal people make decisions for themselves. This is a simple amendment that will allow the traditional owners of Nguiu to carve out a better future for themselves, other residents and future generations. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.