Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. There are a couple of minor changes to this bill that were introduced when the bill was introduced from last year to expand the definition of ‘appropriate authority’ to make it consistent for that use throughout the bill, and to change the penalty regime so that the penalty regime reflects units rather than a dollar amount. So it is introduced with those amendments from when it was before this House previously. Members will recall that the bill was before the House recently, I did notice the member for Karama raised her eyebrows when I gave notice of it yesterday, and I noticed another remark about, what, the third or fourth time now, the member for Karama seemed to think it has been brought before this House. And, of course, there are reasons for doing that. First, it is an amended version of what has been brought before the House before, but also, the Country Liberals do have a commitment to try and provide Aboriginal people with a mechanism and a regime that allows them to be far more empowered than what they are presently under the Aboriginal Land Act, and to give them some further choices with effect to how they deal with permits. That is quite contrary to what we are seeing from Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory, and I shall go on shortly to explain a little bit more about that. Since the time that this bill was introduced last, around 12 months ago, circumstances have indeed changed and more information has come to light that make this Bill even more relevant than it was last time before the House. It is appropriate to revisit this piece of legislation. I am not going to make this debate terribly lengthy and rather than regurgitate what I said in my second reading speech on 29 April 2009 all of which still applies and what I said in my closing debate on 24 February 2010, all of which also still applies, I would like to simply add the information that has come to my ears and also to the ears of other members of the council of Territory Corporation Committee which is chaired by the member for Nelson. We all know, and it is widely accepted, I don’t know too many people who would disagree with this, that one of the major impediments to economic development in Indigenous communities is the permit system around Aboriginal land. The raising of permits can and certainly does stifle development of Indigenous communities, Indigenous lands and the economic opportunity contained therein. There was an attempt by the Howard federal government to address this issue under the Northern Territory Emergency Response where the five year leases were taken out over those communities and areas within the NT that were affected by the intervention. The requirement for Aboriginal land permits was in fact lifted. This applies to common areas of those areas under the leases and also access ways to those leases as well. No sooner did the Rudd government come to power than the minister responsible, that is minister Macklin, came along and removed the lifting of the requirement for permits to access points, along access routes, to those areas affected by the five year leases. So we had a situation where there was no permit required to enter a lease but you could not get to a lease if you were travelling on a public road on Aboriginal land to get there. The classic example of that is, I believe, Peppimenarti. There are two leases at Peppi, one over the community and one over the airstrip. As it happens, the airstrip is about a kilometre or so I think from the community and if you land at the airstrip you do not need a permit, currently. If you can magically teleport into the community itself you don’t need a permit for that either. But the fact is you cannot actually drive from the airstrip to the community without a permit even though it is only about a kilometre away. That is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t know whether that particular case is common knowledge but I suspect it is not but it ought to be. But it gets better. There are now over some communities on 40 year and 99 year leases, that is some of those communities that were subject to the intervention five year leases. Those leases, the new ones, the 40 and 99 year leases are being negotiated by the office of Township Leasing, the federal authority that was set up to manage this task specifically. What we find being negotiated back into those leases is the requirement for fairness to enter those communities. What has actually happened is that John Howard opened those communities up, Macklin closed them down one step and stopped people getting to the communities and the office of Township Leasing is taking the final step and now stopping anyone from going to those communities without a permit. What we have done now is a complete 360 on this and bearing those communities under the weight of the permit system once again. This information came to my ears and certainly the other members of the Territory Corporation through Mr Pat Watson who gave evidence before the committee on 14 April 2010 where he says and I quote from the transcript - and I do know whether this has been a corrected transcript or not - but I quote from the information I have. He refers to leases negotiated under the Office of Township Leasing. The chairman says:
Mr Watson replies:
The chairman says: So that town is not an open town? Mr Watson says:
Then later in the evidence that was given, Mr Chairman says:
And I say: ‘Not so much as a permit but as a condition of the lease’, thinking that that is how the permit system is being brought back into it through that lease system, and the Chairman continues:
Mr Watson says:
Technically you need a permit which you would not need in a normal town. If the act says you need a permit then you technically need a permit. Now how strictly that has been enforced I do not know’. So, Madam Speaker, it is quite abundantly plain and obvious that permits to these communities that are now being struck under 40- and 99-year leases will have the full weight of the Aboriginal permits legislation upon them. It really defeats the entire purpose of the original intent of the intervention in respect to opening up Aboriginal communities and lands to normalise them. That is a term that I am sure I have heard the other side of the House use as well. They were looking, through their growth towns strategy, to normalise Aboriginal communities. You cannot have normalise any place if you make it different from what is considered to be the norm, or the mainstream, in the Northern Territory. Certainly, the permits system caused those communities to fall into that trap. But once again, these communities become a closed shop. So much for the openness and accountability that is supposed to be, allegedly, the hallmark of this government. No longer will media crews, and I believe that there was a Channel 7 media crew sent out to report on the progress on SIHIP, have access to those communities where these Office of Town Leasing leases have had the requirement for permits reinstated. No longer will they be able to report on the appalling state of the failed Rudd and Henderson SIHIP program. Originally, this amendment was put together for the purpose of facilitating access to a class of person, namely fishermen, as an example, to Aboriginal inter-tidal waters. In its current state that remains quite true. The situation regarding the reinstating of permits under the Office of Township Leasing leases changes those circumstances considerably. I can flag that perhaps there may even be some amendments to this bill later, to better deal with the changes of a permit situation under the aforementioned leases. You can quite plainly see the current regime of Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory, support the introduction, or the reintroduction, of permits in all Aboriginal communities. There has certainly been no evidence given to me to make me think otherwise. It goes to the rhetoric and spin we see coming from the other side of the House. They say they are interested in economic development within Aboriginal communities. They have a whole policy around growth towns, but I fail to see - and I suspect Territorians and Aboriginal people themselves will fail to see - just how economic development can take place in these communities under the current regime of Aboriginal permits. The amendment that I have brought to the House today reflects only in relation to the inter-tidal waters. However, it is the beginning of a commitment, or a continuing commitment, from the Country Liberals to try to open up the Northern Territory to economic development by not necessarily lifting the permit system, but certainly making it easier for Aboriginal people to determine who may come on to their land, into their communities, and the ease by which they can achieve that. I wonder whether Indigenous residents in some communities, and some land councils, might like to be able to issue a blanket permit for - wait for it - these type of people, these classes of people. Would it not be great if they could issue a blanket permit to builders and tradesmen? Leave the fisherman aside. Yes, they can have, if this were to be passed, access to the inter-tidal waters. However, would it not be nice if we could get to a situation where a land council could say: ‘Yes, we can issue one permit to all the employees of a specific company working at Wadeye’, for example, or ‘We could issue one blanket permit to a group of contractors who are engaged with a specific alliance’, rather than having to issue permit after permit after permit because that is what the Aboriginal Land Act says at the moment: you can only issue a permit to an individual. There is no provision within that act to do anything other than issue a permit to an individual. You cannot issue a permit to a group or a class of people. With this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act, that is just what we are trying to achieve. Once again, please let me reassure all members of this House that this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the permit system. Quite the contrary, it is designed in an attempt to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners or relevant land councils can open up, by way of a general exemption, Aboriginal land - specifically in this case inter-tidal zones - to the general public or a particular class of the public. Again, the proposed amendment does not in any way derogate from current provisions of the act, but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions. Madam Speaker, I maintain this proposed amendment should not be considered controversial, yet, I suspect it will not attract the support of the government. The current permit system will remain just as it is. If this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act is passed, it just gives Aboriginal people more power to determine more easily who can come on to their land. Madam Speaker, I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and accompanying explanatory memorandum. Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to table that, Member for Katherine. Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and a copy of the explanatory memorandum. Leave granted. Debate adjourned. |