Mr MITCHELL - 1995-10-17
My question relates to the Larrakia people. My wife, who is in the gallery today, will be very interested in hearing the answer. The Aboriginal Land Commissioner has commenced a new hearing of the Kenbi Land Claim. Is there any way of settling this matter without having to go again through a long, difficult and possibly painful process?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question which is timely, given the number of inquiries I have received from members of the public over the last week. People in Darwin have an interest in the fact that the Kenbi Land Claim is about to be reheard. Although it is not my usual style to read an answer, I have a written answer that I would like to place on the public record for the benefit of members and people listening to the broadcast of Question Time.
Cox Peninsula, over which the Kenbi Land Claim falls, is of enormous importance to the future of Darwin. The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1990 identifies 4 options for the future growth of Darwin, and Cox Peninsula is identified clearly as the preferred option. If other options have to be pursued, considerable detriment will accrue to the whole Territory community. The significance of Cox Peninsula lies in its proximity to the City of Darwin. The Territory government recognises that Darwin and the surrounding hinterland, including Cox Peninsula, was Larrakia land and that Larrakia people retain an interest in that land. Probably, Darwin is unique among capital cities in retaining its links with the original Aboriginal occupants. However, the Kenbi Land Claim presents a dilemma - the need to balance the land needs of an expanding capital city against the aspirations of the Larrakia. Nothing is to be gained by adopting hardline positions. A balance will be achieved through negotiation based on mutual respect.
Page 880
The last time this matter came before a Aboriginal Land Commissioner, he found that there were no traditional owners - a decision that was set aside on appeal. Without wishing to pre-empt any decision, I am advised that the current hearing could result in recognition of certain Wagait people as traditional owners in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, or there may be no finding of traditional ownership, or that a very small group of Larrakia could be granted inalienable freehold title to some or all of the claimed area. Such decisions would highlight the inadequacies of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in its current form. Inalienable freehold title, within the meaning of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, is a form of tenure that is inappropriate for most of the land subject to the Kenbi Land Claim. It will not provide an economic base for any successful claimants. A narrow finding of traditional ownership will mean that the interests of the vast majority of Larrakia people living in Darwin will not be accommodated. However, this is not an all or nothing situation.
The Territory government made an offer of settlement to the Northern Land Council in March 1993. That offer was rejected, but I am advised now that some interested parties claim to have been unaware of the offer. Under the previous Northern Territory proposal, the value and area would have been retained, scheduled as Aboriginal land, and some land would have been granted as freehold or under long-term lease to encourage Aboriginal people to participate in development on a commercial basis, while coastal areas would have been preserved as park land with Aboriginal participation in its management. I am advised that the main differences between the NLC and Territory government positions were in the terms of the proposed leases.
During the past year, the government has held discussions with Larrakia people on issues in and around Darwin. After listening to their concerns, we reviewed the offer to find a compromise. I do not want to see the Kenbi claim develop into a win-lose situation, bringing different claimant's interests into conflict with the result that the wider community or claimants lose. There is an opportunity for a win-win outcome, involving compromise. However, that will not be assisted by the adversarial nature of the land claim process under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I prefer a negotiated resolution. Accordingly, I asked that a revised offer be put to the Larrakia people and to the people of Belyuen by the Solicitor-General at the recommencement of the Kenbi Land Claim hearing yesterday. I believe the offer is the best option to address the conflict between rival claimant groups. It will provide the economic base being sought by many Larrakia, and will meet the needs of those Larrakia and Belyuen people who seek to retain their existing inalienable title. That offer accords recognition of their claims and would allow the claimants to decide the timing of economic development of their land. I trust that, with goodwill on both sides, together we can resolve what is currently the longest-running land claim on the books.
Mr Speaker, I table the proposal as it was put originally. It may have moved since the Solicitor-General recommenced negotiations yesterday, but this was the starting point.
Mr Ede: The starting point as at yesterday?
Mr STONE: I think it was yesterday.
Page 881
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question which is timely, given the number of inquiries I have received from members of the public over the last week. People in Darwin have an interest in the fact that the Kenbi Land Claim is about to be reheard. Although it is not my usual style to read an answer, I have a written answer that I would like to place on the public record for the benefit of members and people listening to the broadcast of Question Time.
Cox Peninsula, over which the Kenbi Land Claim falls, is of enormous importance to the future of Darwin. The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan 1990 identifies 4 options for the future growth of Darwin, and Cox Peninsula is identified clearly as the preferred option. If other options have to be pursued, considerable detriment will accrue to the whole Territory community. The significance of Cox Peninsula lies in its proximity to the City of Darwin. The Territory government recognises that Darwin and the surrounding hinterland, including Cox Peninsula, was Larrakia land and that Larrakia people retain an interest in that land. Probably, Darwin is unique among capital cities in retaining its links with the original Aboriginal occupants. However, the Kenbi Land Claim presents a dilemma - the need to balance the land needs of an expanding capital city against the aspirations of the Larrakia. Nothing is to be gained by adopting hardline positions. A balance will be achieved through negotiation based on mutual respect.
Page 880
The last time this matter came before a Aboriginal Land Commissioner, he found that there were no traditional owners - a decision that was set aside on appeal. Without wishing to pre-empt any decision, I am advised that the current hearing could result in recognition of certain Wagait people as traditional owners in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, or there may be no finding of traditional ownership, or that a very small group of Larrakia could be granted inalienable freehold title to some or all of the claimed area. Such decisions would highlight the inadequacies of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in its current form. Inalienable freehold title, within the meaning of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, is a form of tenure that is inappropriate for most of the land subject to the Kenbi Land Claim. It will not provide an economic base for any successful claimants. A narrow finding of traditional ownership will mean that the interests of the vast majority of Larrakia people living in Darwin will not be accommodated. However, this is not an all or nothing situation.
The Territory government made an offer of settlement to the Northern Land Council in March 1993. That offer was rejected, but I am advised now that some interested parties claim to have been unaware of the offer. Under the previous Northern Territory proposal, the value and area would have been retained, scheduled as Aboriginal land, and some land would have been granted as freehold or under long-term lease to encourage Aboriginal people to participate in development on a commercial basis, while coastal areas would have been preserved as park land with Aboriginal participation in its management. I am advised that the main differences between the NLC and Territory government positions were in the terms of the proposed leases.
During the past year, the government has held discussions with Larrakia people on issues in and around Darwin. After listening to their concerns, we reviewed the offer to find a compromise. I do not want to see the Kenbi claim develop into a win-lose situation, bringing different claimant's interests into conflict with the result that the wider community or claimants lose. There is an opportunity for a win-win outcome, involving compromise. However, that will not be assisted by the adversarial nature of the land claim process under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. I prefer a negotiated resolution. Accordingly, I asked that a revised offer be put to the Larrakia people and to the people of Belyuen by the Solicitor-General at the recommencement of the Kenbi Land Claim hearing yesterday. I believe the offer is the best option to address the conflict between rival claimant groups. It will provide the economic base being sought by many Larrakia, and will meet the needs of those Larrakia and Belyuen people who seek to retain their existing inalienable title. That offer accords recognition of their claims and would allow the claimants to decide the timing of economic development of their land. I trust that, with goodwill on both sides, together we can resolve what is currently the longest-running land claim on the books.
Mr Speaker, I table the proposal as it was put originally. It may have moved since the Solicitor-General recommenced negotiations yesterday, but this was the starting point.
Mr Ede: The starting point as at yesterday?
Mr STONE: I think it was yesterday.
Page 881
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016