Mr LUGG - 1997-12-02
Last Thursday, I asked the Chief Minister about native title claims now being possible over freehold title. That concern was laughed off by the Labor Party. However, their federal masters have refused to accept a clause relating to freehold title extinguishing native title in the Wik bill. The Labor Party has had removed from the Wik bill a provision that freehold title extinguishes native title once and for all. We heard the same nonsense about pastoral leases. As a home owner, and on behalf of all home owners, I ask whether my backyard is safe.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! A question has been asked. Even before the minister has risen to his feet, members are interjecting.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I awoke this morning to the news of the Labor amendments that have been carried in the Senate, and 2 amendments were of particular concern.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: I can understand why the member for Stuart interjects. The reality is that Labor does not want Australians to hear the truth. The Labor Party forced through, with the help of Senator Harradine, amendments that removed the clause that would have safeguarded freehold title. I will come back to that in a moment. It also forced through, with the help of Senator Harradine, an amendment that provides that native title claimants - the people who make the claim - do not have actually to prove it. They have simply to assert it. If this does not sound warning bells in the ears of Australians, then something is wrong.
I watched the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on television last night. His address to the nation in response to the Prime Minister was a very polished performance. The average punter, the ordinary mums and dads watching, were basically being asked to trust Mr Beazley. This is the man who was deputy to Paul Keating, who told us that pastoral leases extinguished native title ...
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Page 54
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arnhem, you have been warned once already.
Mr STONE: This is the same man who joined Paul Keating in saying that this was not a problem.
Mr Bailey: Even John Laws does not believe you.
Mr STONE: I do not care what John Laws has to say. I am more interested in securing a resolution that will guarantee that people’s homes and properties and businesses are safe.
Kim Beazley gave all those assurances when he was in government. He now seeks to give them from opposition. How on earth can you have a land administration system operating if people who believe they have native title can simply assert it and not have to prove it? Think about this. Based on these amendments, anyone who walks in the door can assert it. They do not have to prove it. Why do we have 2 sets of laws - one for Aboriginal Australians and one for the rest of us - when it comes to asserting rights and claims over land?
Mr Bailey: Under your amendments ...
Mr STONE: If the member for Wanguri will be quiet, I will continue with the answer.
I come now to this issue of freehold title. Once again, the Labor Party says the same things it said about pastoral leases and farms. It says that it is not a problem and that it will not happen. However, the allies of the Labor Party, the land councils, are writing to my government and are saying that, where we have acquired freehold and converted it back to crown land, native title revives. In other words, the freehold title ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr STONE: The freehold title did not ultimately get rid of and extinguish native title. The member for Nhulunbuy can interject all he wants. We are heading down the same path of uncertainty. These amendments will not serve the Australian nation.
Mr Toyne: You are supposed to be a QC, but you contradict yourself.
Mr STONE: You can make all your smart interjections, but there are people sitting at home listening to this broadcast.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Stuart says ‘2 people’, but I can assure him that this Question Time is listened to very widely. People are interested in knowing what members opposite, the Labor Party, are supporting in this legislation. What they are supporting is the ability of native title claimants simply to make an assertion of their right rather than having to prove it. Territorians should think about that. Is that fair? The answer is no.
The second thing that the Labor Party has supported is that we do not need to put anything in the act about freehold title because it will be all right. It does not need to be spelt out. It does not need to be safeguarded or guaranteed. If it is all right, what was wrong with leaving the provision in there in the first place?
Page 55
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! A question has been asked. Even before the minister has risen to his feet, members are interjecting.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I awoke this morning to the news of the Labor amendments that have been carried in the Senate, and 2 amendments were of particular concern.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: I can understand why the member for Stuart interjects. The reality is that Labor does not want Australians to hear the truth. The Labor Party forced through, with the help of Senator Harradine, amendments that removed the clause that would have safeguarded freehold title. I will come back to that in a moment. It also forced through, with the help of Senator Harradine, an amendment that provides that native title claimants - the people who make the claim - do not have actually to prove it. They have simply to assert it. If this does not sound warning bells in the ears of Australians, then something is wrong.
I watched the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, on television last night. His address to the nation in response to the Prime Minister was a very polished performance. The average punter, the ordinary mums and dads watching, were basically being asked to trust Mr Beazley. This is the man who was deputy to Paul Keating, who told us that pastoral leases extinguished native title ...
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Page 54
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Arnhem, you have been warned once already.
Mr STONE: This is the same man who joined Paul Keating in saying that this was not a problem.
Mr Bailey: Even John Laws does not believe you.
Mr STONE: I do not care what John Laws has to say. I am more interested in securing a resolution that will guarantee that people’s homes and properties and businesses are safe.
Kim Beazley gave all those assurances when he was in government. He now seeks to give them from opposition. How on earth can you have a land administration system operating if people who believe they have native title can simply assert it and not have to prove it? Think about this. Based on these amendments, anyone who walks in the door can assert it. They do not have to prove it. Why do we have 2 sets of laws - one for Aboriginal Australians and one for the rest of us - when it comes to asserting rights and claims over land?
Mr Bailey: Under your amendments ...
Mr STONE: If the member for Wanguri will be quiet, I will continue with the answer.
I come now to this issue of freehold title. Once again, the Labor Party says the same things it said about pastoral leases and farms. It says that it is not a problem and that it will not happen. However, the allies of the Labor Party, the land councils, are writing to my government and are saying that, where we have acquired freehold and converted it back to crown land, native title revives. In other words, the freehold title ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr STONE: The freehold title did not ultimately get rid of and extinguish native title. The member for Nhulunbuy can interject all he wants. We are heading down the same path of uncertainty. These amendments will not serve the Australian nation.
Mr Toyne: You are supposed to be a QC, but you contradict yourself.
Mr STONE: You can make all your smart interjections, but there are people sitting at home listening to this broadcast.
Mr Toyne interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Stuart says ‘2 people’, but I can assure him that this Question Time is listened to very widely. People are interested in knowing what members opposite, the Labor Party, are supporting in this legislation. What they are supporting is the ability of native title claimants simply to make an assertion of their right rather than having to prove it. Territorians should think about that. Is that fair? The answer is no.
The second thing that the Labor Party has supported is that we do not need to put anything in the act about freehold title because it will be all right. It does not need to be spelt out. It does not need to be safeguarded or guaranteed. If it is all right, what was wrong with leaving the provision in there in the first place?
Page 55
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016