Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to detain the Senate for long. I know there are a number of people who would like to speak to the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, and these people have a number of personal experiences and I am sure they would like to relay them with regard to the implications of this bill on the Northern Territory. There has been some anxiousness about this bill within the coalition, hence the slight delay in it being introduced into the Senate. I am pleased to say that the coalition has received a number of assurances that have sought to allay some of our concerns.

The substantive aspects of this bill are threefold: firstly the flexibility in the leasing arrangements operating within Aboriginal townships; secondly, some technical amendments to the Northern Territory emergency response and; thirdly, the passage into law of a tripartite agreement between the Northern Territory government, the Commonwealth and the Indigenous landowners about the passage of title of 13 national parks.

I will confine my comments to schedules 1 and 3 of the bill, which concern the flexibility in township leasing arrangements. For a long time the coalition have supported the idea that Aboriginal land should be not just a spiritual asset to the Aboriginal people but also an economic asset. As part of last year’s Northern Territory emergency response, we introduced a 99-year lease for Aboriginal townships. It was a form of homeownership. It was a good measure then and it remains a good measure. This bill seeks to change some of the provisions within that by offering a little bit more flexibility—namely, that these leases can be from 40 to 99 years. Whilst it is the coalition’s position that we think longer is better in regard to these leasing arrangements, we accept the fact that some flexibility is needed, so we will be supporting it.

It would be remiss of me not to make a few comments about the importance of the introduction of the Northern Territory emergency response last year. I believe very strongly, and I know that many people share my view, that we needed to take a very strong line with regard to protecting children and ensuring the functionality of Indigenous communities. This was shared by the now government when in opposition. We are all working as hard as we can towards the end goal: to close the gap in life expectancy, to give Indigenous children every opportunity and hope for the future, to protect their wellbeing and to ensure they have educational and health opportunities open to them. So we look at the introduction of these sorts of amendments to legislation in a very positive light, working towards the same end as the now government is.

Homeownership, as I mentioned, is a very important part of a commitment to a community for all Australians. If they have the opportunity to participate in homeownership they take a little bit more pride in how they manage their affairs domestically. So we do support very strongly this contribution and the flexibility it entails so that more people will be able to partake in homeownership to ensure a civil society and a society that is going to benefit all people who are exposed to it in those communities.

The second part of the bill I would like to speak about tonight is basically the transfer of title for 13 national parks. I am advised that in 2003 the government agreed to the transfer of title to these parks. But the transfers, for whatever reasons—I am unsure exactly what they are—did not take place. The question from the coalition’s perspective was that the ongoing management of these parks be retained by the Northern Territory government. This is part of a process to ensure that they will not fall into a state of disrepair or will not be managed poorly. We want to ensure that there is still some accountability for how these parks are managed. I have been advised that this agreement has been reached and those assurances have been received so that not only will the parks retain the appropriate management but access to the parks will remain free to all. In having received that assurance, the coalition will be supporting this legislation and will be maintaining an ongoing process to protect the management of those parks in the absence of any legislative assurances.

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

The Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 makes amendments to the scheme introduced by the previous government for township leases, otherwise known as section 19A leases, as well as some other amendments. The Australian Greens, as people from this chamber will know, strenuously opposed the previous government’s move to introduce the 99-year township leases. We believed these leases marked a significant change in land rights legislation. We had a number of concerns at the time, particularly about lack of consultation with communities introducing these specific changes. If people remember that debate at the time, there was consultation around a section of that legislation but not about these most important changes. We were concerned about the potential for traditional owners to have to relinquish control over land for 99 years; the potential for inappropriate commercial development on subleased land; and, given the length of the leases, the potential for traditional owners to lose the chance to respond to future opportunities for economic development that emerge. We also had concerns about the previous government pressuring communities into entering these leases, particularly over requiring them to enter into leases over what where supposedly considered non-essential services. But, of course, communities were then in the process of having to discuss 99-year leases for things like schools. The Greens very strongly believed that education and schools were an essential service.

We know the ALP shared our concerns at the time—in fact, the Democrats, the Greens and the ALP held a joint media conference to talk about these issues. We remain unconvinced by the argument that private leases are needed for economic development in Indigenous communities. As I said two years ago, the main impediment to economic development in Aboriginal communities is not the issue of land tenure and private leases. Housing access, rather than individual homeownership, is an issue. Constraints to economic development include incredible remoteness; the transaction and transport costs; limited opportunities; small population sizes with no economies of scale; the lack of equity in terms of low incomes and low rates of employment; and, in particular, the lack of education, training and infrastructure. These are all issues that constrain economic development.

We are concerned with the focus on leases rather than on more innovative tenure arrangements such as those that are being considered in response to the housing affordability crisis in the broader community. At the very time that government are continuing to say they need control of the assets in order to be able to fund housing et cetera, the government are also helping and looking at very innovative lease arrangements—and I must congratulate the people who are looking at these types of innovative lease arrangements—that are not about control and ownership of the land. However, having said that, this bill does in fact make some positive amendments and is a step in the right direction.

The new government’s approach, we believe, is an improvement on the previous government’s approach. The bill provides for township leases under section 19A to be for a period of between 40 and 99 years. Of course, we would prefer it to be at the 40-year end, but this is an improvement on requiring 99-year leases alone, which we believe, as I have stated before and just then, are too long. The bill also makes changes to the executive director of township leases. The executive director can now be responsible for section 19 leases and leases over community living areas as well. This provides a level of independence in administrating these leases. The executive director is a statutory office, and that level of independence in administrating the leases is in a measure reassuring, although we would like to see included a specific mechanism for the executive director to access expert advice, including from landholders as well as the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments. We believe this is essential so that they get input from people who are actually experts on these sorts of things as well as from landowners.

The bill, in part, is designed to facilitate the government’s housing program for remote communities. While the investment of $1billion is very welcome and an excellent start, we do have some concerns about the housing program. One concern is that the proposed housing model for remote communities does not yet meet the needs of communities, although the level of funding certainly goes part way to addressing the housing crisis that faces remote communities, which will require an enormous amount of funding.

The Greens are concerned about the monopoly of NT Housing as the only provider. This housing is different to other public housing because it deals with the issue of 60-year leases. Although the 40-year option is on the table, I have been told personally that some communities are still being required to negotiate around 60 years rather than 40 years, and they would prefer to be negotiating around a 40-year lease option.

We want to ensure that appropriate consultation is carried out with communities in designing a housing model for their communities. Again, we are deeply concerned that in fact some of the urban models are being pushed onto communities rather than there being any true consultation with people to find out what will actually work in remote communities.

We are also very keen to ensure that government commitments, which they are supposedly writing into housing contracts with providers, adequately deal with employment and training requirements. We are pleased to see the government committed to including employment and training requirements in contracts with providers and we will be keeping a close eye on that to ensure it happens, and it happens appropriately, in each community. I am still concerned that some of the innovative enterprises that are in fact going into some communities may be sidelined by the alliance approach the government are taking in the Northern Territory. As I said, we will be watching that issue extremely closely.

Maintenance is also a very important issue—not just day-to-day maintenance but ensuring there is a plan and proper funding for long-term maintenance. We are aware of many run-down houses in remote communities, and it is essential that adequate funding be provided for maintenance now, not later down the track. Overall, the Greens believe that portion of the bill is a step in the right direction, although we still have concerns about the government’s requirement to enter into these types of leases in order to get money for housing.

Another section of the bill deals with parklands. We are very happy to see that the 13 areas of land in schedule 3 of the bill are finally being declared Aboriginal land, to be operated as national parks under a joint management model. I understand that in fact the coalition did have some problems with this. I have now heard Senator Bernardi say they are happy with the arrangements. Perhaps those arrangements could be shared with the rest of us to ensure that the rest of us are happy with those arrangements and to see whether they differ from those we have been briefed on. The Greens were briefed on this bill. I am very interested to know whether those arrangements have subsequently been changed since we were briefed, because it may raise some concerns for the Greens if they are different from that which we have been informed of. We support this bill.

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

The Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 makes minor amendments to the Northern Territory emergency measures through amendments to the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. It means the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 allows for greater flexibility in granting of township leases and expands the function of the position of the Executive Director of Township Leasing.

This bill, finally, provides for the grant of further Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory to become national parks. Let me go through those three important aspects of the legislation we are dealing with. Schedule 1 amends the Aboriginal land rights act 1976 to make provision for township leases of between 40 years and 99 years. This gives Aboriginal people far more flexibility, while at the same time it gives a lease of a minimum length, which will not be a deterrent to any development. Any leases agreed will be renewable but any extension cannot take the total lease period beyond 99 years. This is a great improvement for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. What the previous government were proposing were 99-year leases, which had no other options. Traditional owners would lose control of their land for at least 99 years—in other words, over several generations, when considering the life span of Indigenous people.

Under these changes, though, a land trust considering a township lease can better tailor the lease terms and conditions to the needs of a community. The people themselves will have an increased range of options in considering leasing and subleasing. The Executive Director of Township Leasing will also be appointed, either on a full- or part-time basis, and will have additional functions enabling them to enter into a variety of leases for the benefit of Aboriginal people. If employed full time, the executive director is not allowed to engage in any paid outside employment without ministerial approval and, if employed part time, they are not allowed to engage in outside employment which may conflict with the performance of their duties. The executive director will be able to enter into and administer section 19 leases and other leases, such as for community living areas, where the minister approves such involvement and, similarly, for some leases, such as for town camps, where the minister approves such involvement.

Schedule 2 of this legislation makes improvements to the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. Amendments have been made to allow the Commonwealth and others to agree on amounts to be paid in respect of the five-year leases currently held by the Commonwealth over all of the prescribed land in the 73 communities that are operating under the Northern Territory intervention.

Under these amendments, in paragraph 23, a land council can be given the function of negotiating agreed payments in respect of the granting of a lease. Furthermore, proposed section 33B allows such a land council to charge the Commonwealth a fee for reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out functions under section 23. However, under section 35, the land council must spend any such fees as income for those directly related to administrative costs. So there is no carte blanche for land councils to raise revenue for general purposes.

The question of compensation for assets taken over the five-year leases has been a long, ongoing issue of concern for communities in the Northern Territory since day one of the intervention. This amendment now clarifies the matter, and compensation will clearly be negotiated, rather than following the previous government’s line of ‘just compensation which will be assessed’, which was rather vague and uncertain. Now the matter can be negotiated with the land councils representing communities if they so desire.

Finally, I think the most significant aspect of this bill is schedule 3, which provides for the grant of 13 further areas of land to be operated as national parks. The land presently under land claims will become Aboriginal land, which will immediately be leased back to the Northern Territory government for 99 years and then become national parks. The background to this is that in 2004 the Northern Territory government introduced the Parks and Reserves (Frameworks for the Future) Act to resolve outstanding land rights and native title claims on parks and reserves across the Northern Territory. Twenty-seven parks were assigned to one of three schedules, based on the strength of Indigenous attachment, tenure of the park and adjacent land and the existence of native title or Aboriginal land rights claims. Parks and reserves were to be placed on schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and then leased back to the Northern Territory as jointly managed national parks. The process of scheduling required an amendment to the Commonwealth legislation, which passed through both houses of federal parliament—the legislation we are now dealing with.

It is important to note that what we now have in a Rudd Labor government and in Minister Macklin are a federal government and minister that are prepared to work cooperatively and consultatively with Indigenous people and form a very important working relationship with the Northern Territory government and its new Chief Minister, Paul Henderson. There was no action from the previous federal government, despite correspondence from the former Northern Territory Chief Minister, the Hon. Clare Martin, to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Senator Amanda Vanstone, in March 2005. There was a further letter to the Hon. Mal Brough in June 2007 requesting that the affected parks be inserted into schedule 1 of the land rights act. What we now see with the election of a Rudd Labor government is a federal government prepared to work cooperatively with the Northern Territory government, get things done and move this agenda along. This has been on the table since 2005, and we did not have any action or response from the previous two ministers under the previous federal government. In a letter from Chief Minister Paul Henderson that I received back in March, he said:

I am also aware of the considerable frustration and concern from traditional owners of the Schedule 1 parks and reserves that the continuing delay by the former Government in introducing the Bill to Parliament was motivated more by political rather than administrative considerations. Many of these people are old and have battled for many years for recognition of ownership of these areas. It seems fitting that the Territory Government’s wishes in recognising this ownership and lease-back arrangements for parks and reserves be supported by the Australian Government.

That is exactly what we have done and what we are doing today.

This bill makes amendments to legislation relating to several aspects of the Northern Territory emergency response. These changes will allow greater flexibility in land dealings for Indigenous people and will ultimately facilitate provision of improved housing and infrastructure through better security of tenure. Lease times will be more flexible and allow traditional owners to better tailor agreements to community needs. The government will work with traditional owners through land councils to progress leases where communities are interested. Any question of compensation for any assets taken over will be negotiated and communities are assured that they may be represented by their land council if desired.

The amendments being made by this bill will enable the finalisation of the Regional Partnerships agreement signed on 20 May this year with the Groote Eylandt people. It is a partnership between the Indigenous people on Groote Eylandt, the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government. Groote Eylandt, as some may know, is a large island out in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is surrounded by clear waters full of fish and prawns, as Senator Scullion would know, and manganese is found on it, which is mined. This Regional Partnerships agreement allows for a lease period of 40 years, plus a possible renewal of 40 years. Without this legislation enabling flexibility, such an option would have been far less likely. In fact, it would have been rejected by the people on Groote Eylandt. This flexibility enabled the people to feel comfortable in signing the agreement. Under this agreement, land will be leased for 40 years and those leases will be renewable. The communities of Angurugu and Umbakumba will get more housing and infrastructure works. They have also established a top-standard resort in Alyangula for business tourism.

This is a group of Indigenous people who have literally got their act together. I want to pay tribute to the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the people on Groote Eylandt. Not so long ago, they suffered most of the problems we hear about: petrol sniffing, alcohol abuse and domestic violence. Now they have an alcohol management scheme worked out by themselves and have very little trouble anymore. Petrol sniffing is all but finished; domestic violence is rare. The local mining company, GEMCO, have always offered employment, and a good number have taken up that opportunity.

Minister Macklin has now visited Groote Eylandt twice, the last time being to actually sign this lease and to witness the opening of the fantastic new Dugong Beach Resort hotel. Importantly, the Anindilyakwa Land Council put royalties from the mining together with a bank loan from the National Australia Bank to build the Dugong Beach Resort and to start up a tourism business. Prior to this, they planned ahead and sent a number of local young people over to Cairns to work and train in hospitality. These people now work at their own resort. An agreement with GEMCO means that visitors will stay there and only there, as well as tourists. There is also a fishing lodge next door owned by Andrew Ettingshausen, which they work in partnership with. Fisherfolk stay at the resort and use the ET fishing trips. So this is a real win, this is a very good news story for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and it is a winning situation for all concerned.

This is a great example of what can be achieved where a community has been supported and it has turned things around. It is also a great example of a private partnership involved with Indigenous people to the benefit of all parties, and backing them of course is a Commonwealth government that is prepared to enter into negotiation and consultation with Indigenous people so they can get a land-leasing agreement that supports the enterprise that they want to develop. I was very saddened that I was not able to attend the opening of the Dugong Beach Resort hotel, due to family reasons, but I have heard that it was a fantastic day. I know, from a number of people who have travelled to Groote Eylandt since, that it is simply an outstanding resort to stay at. It is similar to the Darwin Airport Resort, which was built in the Northern Territory by Foxy, who has gone into partnership with the Anindilyakwa Land Council in the Dugong Beach Resort, and this is a terrific, fantastic good news story for Indigenous people in the Territory. All this has been achieved by the people, largely represented by their land council really negotiating deals and agreements. The knowledge that this legislation would give them lease flexibility was the final assurance they needed before leasing their land and opening the way for better housing and infrastructure.

Resolving Indigenous issues by agreement, rather than by imposition or through the courts, is the way this government prefers, and so do the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory. Once again we can say that a bill coming from the Rudd Labor government is one of a raft of bills aimed at improving outcomes for Indigenous people through consultation and agreement. This bill enables Indigenous landowners to negotiate much more flexible lease arrangements if they choose to lease their land. They have more say in the lease terms and length or in the subleasing arrangements. There is a better, fairer balance between lessees and lessors. They know that they are not signing away their land for generations. It will give more certainty in negotiating any payments under the five-year leases in the prescribed communities.

These changes are all part of what will be an ongoing series of practical measures under the Closing the Gap program, which one could really say started in full on 13 February with the apology. Other measures include funding Indigenous education, such as the additional 200 teachers and additional classrooms in the Northern Territory; improvements to literacy and numeracy programs; and additional boarding colleges to improve access to secondary education for remote students. They are all part of this package. No-one believes that this gap can be closed overnight, but this bill should be supported as part of that ongoing package. It is another step on the road to bridging the gap and improving the economic and financial outcomes of people in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.

In closing, this bill allows flexibility in relation to township leases under the Northern Territory land rights act, from a minimum of 40 years to a maximum of 99 years. It allows the finalisation of the Regional Partnerships agreement on Groote Eylandt with the Anindilyakwa people, it looks at increased functions for the Executive Director of Township Leasing and, more importantly, it allows for a further grant of Aboriginal land which will mean the creation of 13 national parks in the Northern Territory. This legislation is long overdue. I know that for quite a number of years the Northern Territory government and Indigenous people in the Territory have been waiting for this legislation in order to create those 13 national parks. This will mean that this land will become Aboriginal land and will then be leased to the Northern Territory government for 99 years. This is another chapter in improving Indigenous lifestyles in the Northern Territory. It is also another chapter of the good news story of what Indigenous people can do when they get solid backing and commitment from a federal government that then goes on to actually implement its promises, its words and its negotiated outcomes.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I would like to lend some support to my colleagues from the Northern Territory. It is rare that we agree on many things, but I think this piece of legislation pretty much has bipartisan support in this place and I really need to deal only with one aspect of it. Firstly, I would like to make the brief comment that I agree with Senator Crossin’s remarks on the cross-government process of establishing the Dugong Beach Resort. Having visited the resort, I know it is an absolutely fantastic place. To anybody who has an idea that they would like to go fishing and to experience the Northern Territory, I say this is the place for that, and you will have the added benefit of experiencing a great deal of Indigenous culture. A number of the tours that are run from the resort focus very much on people having that Indigenous experience, one that is so difficult for others to have. So I certainly commend a visit to Groote Eylandt.

The issue as to the bill before us that I would like to speak about is the handing over of the 13 parks and reserves to Indigenous ownership. This particular portfolio of parks is currently part of the Northern Territory national parks portfolio. All the parks are in Central Australia. They are a fundamental part of the cultural and recreational activities of many people, particularly those who live in and around Alice Springs. Many Territorians have expressed concern to me, to most Territory parliamentarians and certainly to the Northern Territory government about certain aspects of these parks: how they will be managed in the future, whether the parks’ iconic biodiversity will be maintained as a principal focus of the management of the parks—and there is a whole suite of other questions. Of course, once title to the parks is transferred they will be immediately leased back by the Northern Territory government. The idea is that they will always be protected as national parks. There is concern that as the Northern Territory government—on behalf of Territorians; in fact, on behalf of all Australians—leases these parks back, questions will arise over their management. For instance, will the Northern Territory government be managing these parks as it would manage other parks in the Northern Territory? The parks and reserves are very important, particularly for those people in Central Australia. It is an interesting process. I am not sure why it is the case, but the parks in Central Australia are utilised far more, particularly for walking and such recreational activities, than the parks in the north of Australia are.

Territorians have come to me saying that the Northern Territory Conservation Commission have an excellent record in managing national parks and should continue to perform this role in partnership with Indigenous owners. It is extremely important that a government that is leasing the parks for this purpose be afforded the ability to effectively carry out its duties. Perhaps there has been some confusion, but for some time there have been meetings in Alice Springs of over 200 people. There is a real nervousness because of the constant threat in the media about what the future of the parks will be, particularly in terms of access.

A number of issues continue to crop up: the number of homelands that would potentially be built in these areas and the roads to those homelands would that mean closures in the parks, given that there is pretty much open access to these parks at the moment, which afford the people who live in Alice Springs a wonderful recreational amenity which they wish to continue to enjoy? There are also issues of biodiversity, companion animals and traditional hunting—whether it would be introduced into these parks. There are issues associated with existing commercial operators and whether the transparent process of allocating permits would continue to apply. These are the concerns of the people in Alice Springs.

I have to confess, it is probably me that Senator Crossin and others can blame for holding up the legislation since 2005. She mentioned previous ministers, and I can say that on each of those occasions when the minister came to me and said, ‘Do you think this will be all right?’ I said, ‘Minister, when you put the question to me I asked those people in Alice Springs and they all said definitely no because they need some assurances that entry to the parks and the management of biodiversity for all Australians would in fact be maintained.’

As this legislation is now before the parliament, I wrote to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and I received a letter from him today. I was delighted to find that some of my concerns have at last been put to rest and I have some assurances. I understand there is no specified requirement that any of the parks and reserves have a board of management. I also understand from his letter that the governance arrangements will be determined between the joint managers on a case by case basis. On the issue of boards, the examples of Kakadu, Nitmiluk and Uluru have been used—perhaps that is why the concern arose—because they are all mandated in legislation to be joint managed where the majority of traditional owners are involved in that management process. I understand that the only requirement is that park management contain equitable representation, so it is not mandated as some people have indicated.

I also understand that all joint managements plans are a legislative instrument, must have public consultation and be put to the Legislative Assembly for seven days. So people with concerns in Central Australia should understand clearly that the government of the day will be accountable for any changes that are made, rather than a board that may not have quite the same transparency as one would expect under these circumstances.

The letter confirms that it is up to the Northern Territory government to approve all management arrangements through an instrument, not legislation. Territorians will not see management and control of these parks transferred permanently to traditional owners for the term of the lease. If the Northern Territory government decides to give majority membership on these boards that make these decisions to traditional owners, then that is their decision and they will have to defend that publicly through parliament. The Northern Territory government will be answerable to Territorians on these issues.

Whilst the letter does not provide written assurance that the Northern Territory government will retain and maintain majority management of the parks and reserves, it gives Territorians, through me, an assurance that the legislation does not grant majority management and control to the traditional owners, as is the case, as I indicated, for other parks. Whilst my concerns are not categorically resolved through this letter, the Northern Territory government have assured Territorians that they believe that they retain the necessary controls to be the final decision-making body over park plans of management and other management arrangements. Based upon these assurances, I intend to support the bill on the understanding that the Northern Territory government will maintain overall control of the parks and reserves and will be, as I have indicated, accountable to Territorians through the parliamentary process.

This joint management model could also be used to look at leasing back iconic land that is held as part of a pastoral lease or in private ownership. There are concerns for much of our iconic biodiversity around Australia, often around the inflexibility of the leasing arrangements and whether we can provide specific and focused management plans. Hopefully, this model, which provides me with some comfort that the very best of managers will be ensuring that they make those decisions, can be used not only for the future of parks in the Northern Territory but over other areas of landownership where we wish to protect iconic biodiversity.

The Northern Territory government, after providing me with some assurances, will be heavily scrutinised by the public on their performance and commitment to the preservation of the Northern Territory’s parks and reserves on public display, and they will be judged by the parliament. I am absolutely assured by all those people who currently use the parks that they will be very vocal should the assurances provided by the Northern Territory government dissolve.

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

The Democrats support the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. It is interesting and, to some extent, refreshing that we can have legislation dealing with issues affecting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and not have a lot of heated controversy and finger-pointing, name-calling and outrage being slung backwards and forwards and we can look in a reasonably measured way at the specifics of the issues. That does not mean that everybody has to agree on every component, but at least we can look at it in a fairly measured and balanced way. It contrasts with the approach taken with regard to the specific area of legislation and law that this bill before us amends.

It is a matter of continuing disappointment to me that the approach taken by the previous government and the previous minister in particular was one that was so aggressive towards any attempt to try and just get scrutiny and consideration of some of the concerns that were raised. I am not in any way suggesting that any minister or any government should always agree with me or with anybody else on every issue. But let us not forget the approach that was taken when the amendments were made to the legislation affecting land rights in the Northern Territory by the previous government where, once again, we saw—and let us not forget how frequently this occurred—the previous government insist on an extremely rushed Senate committee inquiry. Again, we were begrudgingly and very lucky, in one sense of the word, to be given even that opportunity.

We held a one-day hearing in Darwin as I recall. I think the relevant officials from the department here in Canberra did not even bother to come up, so we had to deal with most of them over the telephone. We again had this continuing insistence that this was super urgent, there was no time and we could not cope with any amendments as they would have just ruined any prospect of the absolute great gains that would allegedly be achieved by introducing a 99-year lease. There were all these proposed developments that were going to lead to economic opportunity for a range of communities in the Northern Territory that we would purportedly be holding back if we did not pass the legislation straightaway. That was the context of the debate that was held, such as it was.

It was clear that there was a lot of concern at a local level and there was some clear opposition. Again, that does not mean the government should not have proceeded but, as I said a number of times—indeed when the idea was first floated about long-term leases by the previous minister, Minister Vanstone—it is not just a matter of whether or not it is a good idea but, as with many areas of public policy, particularly one like this where you are dealing with such a crucial issue for traditional owners and Aboriginal people in the Territory, the way you do it has a big impact on the chances of success. The way it was done almost guaranteed an increase in suspicion about what was going on. So it is welcome that we are seeing a relaxation of the very tight and prescriptive approach that was put in place in the north with the government using its Senate majority couple of years ago. There will be flexibility in regard to the length of leases so that there is more scope for the length of leases to be in accord with both the views and the differing needs of different groups of traditional owners and different communities in different parts of the Territory. Also, as Senator Siewert indicated in her contribution, the legislation allows for some greater degree of independence with regard to the administering of these leases, so there is less apprehension about them being used or driven by the government agenda of the day, which happens when you get an overtly politicised or an overtly ideological crusade being followed to justify amendments to legislation.

As we all know, in the last week or so it has been the first anniversary of the announcement of the previous government’s Northern Territory intervention. That is a difficult issue and it is understandable that people have strong and differing views. But it is one, as I have said a number of times, where the former minister, Mr Brough, deserves continuing credit for having put the issues of major disadvantage and the major dangers being faced daily with regard to abuse and family violence front and centre on the political agenda in a far stronger and more continuing way than had occurred in the past. He does deserve continuing credit for that but he also, I believe, deserves continuing criticism for doing it in a way that unnecessarily alienated people, many of whom agreed with the stated goal of what the minister was trying to achieve.

It was ironic to see the former minister, Minister Brough, talking over the weekend in some of the pieces looking at this anniversary about how it takes time to get results. Of course it does; that is what everybody said. It also takes time to work through how to set these things up properly—time that was not permitted. He was talking about how a part of it is about building trust—building the trust of police officers on the ground, of the health workers and other workers on the ground. One thing that makes it harder to build trust is when dramatic changes are forced through without proper consultation in a highly politically charged and ideologically driven way, and with very aggressive approaches, basically smearing anybody that disagrees or raises concerns.

Certainly, from the Democrats approach at the time, I made it quite clear a number of times that we did not categorically oppose what the government was trying to do. We wanted to ensure that there was sufficient consultation with the people who are directly affected; that is, that the people who actually own the land and the people whose rights were being modified by laws passed here, so far away, were consulted with and that there was better engagement with them about how these new systems would work. We did not take a position initially on what was being proposed beyond saying: ‘Well, let’s explore this and let’s explore it with the people who are going to be directly affected. Let’s not just push it all through.’ The problems that happened were totally predictable and, to some extent at least, avoidable. It is pleasing to see a different approach being put forward now. That does not mean that I agree with everything that the government is doing, just as I did not agree with everything that the previous government did, but a lot matters with regard to how you do things.

It was ironic to read a piece in the Australian today by David Burchell raising concerns about the approach of some people in the political debate and the descriptions he used about political debate, that they:

... are greased with the oil of personal vitriol—

an approach that seeks to—

ritually degrade those who are seen as renegades from the cause.

That quite strongly—almost perfectly, it seems to me—describes the attitude and approach of some and certainly the attitude and approach of the previous minister towards those who did not just back him 100 per cent. It was certainly the attitude and approach of a huge number of pieces that I saw in the Australian newspaper about these issues over a long period of time.

It is ironic that the piece written by Mr Burchell was not intending to criticise the mainstream media; he was actually criticising what he calls ‘the political blogosphere’. In my experience, whilst there is plenty of vitriol out there as well, some of the most worthwhile contributions about what was happening on the ground—some of it reinforcing and justifying what the government was doing, I might say; it was not all one-sided at all—came through what is loosely called ‘the blogosphere’. That is a very unglamorous title, but that is the description that is applied. From my point of view, the material that is valuable, whether it is published in the blogosphere, elsewhere online or in the mainstream media, examines what is happening on the ground and what the evidence is—as opposed to the ideology, the rhetoric and the vitriol—particularly when it hears from people in those areas affected. It was the failure of the Senate, due to the use of the coalition’s soon-to-disappear majority in this chamber, that we did not do that adequately—that we were not able to engage with people on the ground.

I am mostly focusing my criticism on the former government because that was the position through which I engaged with the legislation in my role in the Senate, but there is no doubt that the Northern Territory government must merit some criticism for the way they engaged with this approach as well. I am not specifically talking about the intervention; I am talking about the changes in the debate around the 99-year leases and the adoption of that, the mixed messages there and the guarantee that they would set up an entity to manage these leases, which then did not happen. I would have to say that that really did not help overall in what is being achieved here.

I do not oppose the option of being able to set up leases of up to 99 years if it is clearly with the full, informed and free consent of the community. As I have stated a number of times about my own state of Queensland, I think there is no doubt that in some of what are known as DOGIT communities, where the land is held jointly in trust by an Aboriginal land trust, some form of leasing arrangement should be further explored. Some of those potentials already exist in legislation in Queensland and could be expanded further. So I am not opposed in principle to that whole idea or the approach that the former minister put forward. I was critical and remain critical not because I just want to keep reliving old disputes but because I think it is important that we do not go back to that very ideological, very aggressive and very vitriolic approach. We need to recognise that process is also important.

These are very challenging issues. When I say that vitriol does not help, I do not mean at all that people should not be strongly committed or forceful in their views. I think we should be very forceful in our views and very determined across party lines to give continuing priority to the major hurdles, major disadvantages and major traumas still being experienced by many Aboriginal people in communities in the Territory and around the country. Of course we should be very determined to do more about that and very strong in our views, but we need to do all we can to reduce the amount of ideological mud-slinging, vitriol and ‘ritual degrading of those who are seen as renegades’—from whatever cause we might think we are the standard bearers for, on whatever side of the spectrum—and to focus particularly on the people who we are talking about. It is legally their land we are talking about, just as much as for any other Australians. You would not legislate about the rights of other people to their lands on such a large scale without consulting and, ideally, engaging with them.

That brings me to another aspect of the legislation: that part to do with parks. I do not dispute the concerns or the issues that Senator Scullion raised. I would certainly never dare to suggest that I know more about the Territory than he does, because he is very immersed and very experienced in the operation of the Territory, the history of the Territory and the views of Territorians. Nonetheless, I perceived an apprehension in the views that Senator Scullion put forward that suggested a concern about excessive Indigenous involvement in the management of parks. Joint management is not necessarily suitable in every single park, and I do not have a problem with the principle of the Territory government having ultimate responsibility for what is decided and then being held accountable through the electorate, but I do think, from my experience—and from my past experience in the Senate environment committee in the inquiries we have done into the management of parks in general—that, as a general rule, there is a growing recognition that we need to maximise Indigenous engagement in the management of parks of all types, anywhere in the country, wherever they are. We are not doing well enough there.

I put on the record my strong hope that the Territory government, current and future, whoever they may be, do seek to maintain maximum effective involvement of Aboriginal people and traditional owners in the management of the various parks that are touched on in this legislation. I am still frustrated by the decision of the previous government to unilaterally remove the Indigenous representative from the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority purely on the basis of a totally separate ideological agenda about government instrumentalities that took no account of the specifics of the management of protected areas and the value that comes from tapping into the knowledge and the rights of traditional owners, whether for a marine park or a national park. I think that point does need to be emphasised.

I do not have a view about what is best for each individual park. That is not my role. It is not my expertise. It is more appropriate for the Northern Territory government to do that. But I do think it is important to emphasise that it is not just some nice feelgood thing: ‘Wouldn’t it be nice if we had lots of Indigenous people on the boards of management and those sorts of things?’ The facts show that, the more you can engage traditional owners in the management of the parks on their land, not only do you get a better environmental outcome but the chances of getting better social and economic outcomes also increase. It is not guaranteed by any means, and I am certainly not suggesting that joint management of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, for example, has been a massive boon for traditional owners. In all sorts of ways it has not, but the joint management arrangement is not the reason why it has panned out that way. I think that point is important to emphasise.

So whilst the bill itself is noncontroversial—in the sense that I think everybody in this chamber supports it—the topic is and should be controversial. It is a matter that I hope will, and I am sure will, continue to be focused on by people from all parties in this chamber. It is important that the priority—the greater focus on Indigenous issues, not just in the Territory but elsewhere—that is a legacy of the former minister, Minister Brough, does continue with the new parliament. I am sure that many people, not just those in this chamber but many outside in the community, will do all they can to make sure that that happens.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In closing the debate on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I would like to thank all those senators who have contributed to the debate—in, might I say, a very constructive way in comparison to some past debates we have had in this chamber and, indeed, the parliament. The bill makes amendments to legislation relating to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. It provides greater flexibility in dealings with land owned or controlled by Aboriginal people. These changes are intended to facilitate an improvement in housing and infrastructure, including through the provision of more options to provide security of tenure for government providers of facilities.

The bill provides traditional Aboriginal owners with more flexibility under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to deal with township leases. Township leases will now be set at a minimum term of 40 years, and there will also be provision for renewal of township leases up to a maximum of 99 years. The changes proposed will allow leases to be tailored for individual communities. Notably, it will allow for an agreed new township lease for Groote Eylandt region communities.

Other provisions in this bill allow the Executive Director of Township Leasing to hold other types of leases or subleases over land primarily held for the benefit of Aboriginal people. This change will give Aboriginal landholders the option of entering into a lease with an independent statutory office holder rather than directly with the government. The bill makes changes to the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, creating a framework for negotiation of payments to landholders for five-year leases. This will encourage a negotiated approach which will diminish the likelihood of court action being initiated to resolve disputes.

Lastly, the bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to allow for the grant of 13 further areas of Aboriginal land. Granting these parks and reserves will enable the government to finalise an agreement struck in September 2003 between the Northern Territory government and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land. It is consistent with the government’s approach of resolving Indigenous land claims by agreement, wherever possible, and not through the courts. As a result, the 13 parks and reserves will be operated as national parks to provide long-lasting enjoyment for all Australians.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.