Mr SETTER - 1997-02-26
Much has been said and many concerns have been raised in recent times regarding native title claims over various places in the Northern Territory, not the least being those around the centres of Darwin and Alice Springs. How can the Labor Party concede native title rights over public recreation areas in the Northern Territory while, at the same time, guaranteeing free access to public areas? Will the minister tell Territorians how the Labor opposition has dodged the issue of native title compensation which taxpayers would be forced to pay under a Labor government?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Jingili is indeed a great deal more aware of the impact that native title will have on the lifestyles of Territorians than are honourable members opposite. We have seen the shameful sight over the past week of these sittings of members opposite
Page 1957
going silent on Territorians' rights. The Leader of the Opposition now concedes native title over public areas, parks, reserves, social clubs. Tracy Village Social and Sports Club has 2500 members. The member for Wanguri is one of them, and he would not even get to his feet to support those 2500 members and say that he opposes the native title claim made over the club. We did not hear a word from him.
Ms Martin: You are a dill.
Mr REED: The member for Fannie Bay says I am a dill. Let us see who is the dill when she has to explain to her constituents that they will have to pay an entrance fee or user fee or compensation for continued use of Vesteys Beach or East Point Reserve.
Ms Martin: That is rubbish.
Mr REED: If you think it is rubbish, why don't you say that you oppose native title claims over these areas, that you oppose a levy of charges or fees and that you oppose the payment of compensation? These areas have been developed ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I have to shout, but I am sure people listening to this broadcast want to know the facts. If the opposition wants to shout over me, I will speak louder to get the message across. However, I should be able to do it in low, dulcet tones so that people can hear the facts. The facts are ...
Mr Bailey: They are lies and misleading statements.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will have an opportunity to ask other questions.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I ask that the member for Wanguri withdraw his comment about lies.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment but, if the member did refer to lies, he should withdraw the comment.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, we have the sorry picture of honourable members opposite not standing up for the rights of Territorians. The Leader of the Opposition, who has artfully dodged the question of compensation, says that she does not believe that entry fees will be charged. She artfully dodged the question of compensation that people now face the prospect of paying to be able to continue to access and use land that has been developed at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Casuarina Coastal Reserve is an example Hundreds of thousands of people enjoy that area each year and $1.5m has been spent on developing it for the benefit of those using it.
Ms Martin: It is not threatened.
Page 1958
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The member for Fannie Bay says that it is not threatened. If it is not threatened, why is it claimed?
The Leader of the Opposition tells us, together with her colleagues, that the way through this is to negotiate.
Mr Ah Kit: Yes.
Mr REED: `Yes', says the member for Arnhem. All right, now tell us what is to be negotiated. If there is no claim for entrance fees, if there is no claim for compensation, what is to be negotiated? There is nothing to negotiate for except dollars. May I illustrate ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: May I illustrate precisely why we are concerned about this claim. Let us assume - not that we can obtain it in writing from the Larrakia - that the claimants will not apply entry fees or user charges, or ask for compensation ...
Mr Bailey: They cannot.
Mr REED: If they do not obtain it from the government, from the taxpayer, they will certainly try to obtain it from elsewhere. I refer members to comments by Mr Risk, who was interviewed by Fred McCue on ABC radio this morning. He said:
What Larrakia people are trying to do is to negotiate a settlement with the NT government and developers over areas
where we can perhaps come to a compromise, where the public purse will not be touched at all, because it is really up
to developers who would foot the bill.
For `compromise' read `taxpayers dollars'. That is the first thing you have to read between the lines here. `... it is really up to developers who would foot the bill'. Fred McCue said: `Presumably, though, developers are going to have to pay something if they enter into negotiations with the Larrakia in the future'. Mr Risk replied: `That's right, yeah'. The cash register bells were ringing behind him. For example, he is talking about a native title in Stuart Park. They will negotiate with the developers. The developers will enter into an agreement to pay whatever compensation is necessary for the development of the block and away you go.
It is `away you go', all right. What happened to the aquaculture farmer? We still have not seen him. He went away and he will never come back. He offered the Larrakia 5% of a company that he intended to develop and $100 000 cash, along with ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1959
Mr REED: The Larrakia said that 5% of the company and $100 000 was not enough. They wanted $200 000. The ante went up, and that was still not enough. He offered them the $200 000 and they said: `Hang on! We have had another thought about this'. They thought they could squeeze the lemon a bit harder. They wanted 10% of the company and $250 000. The land would not be freehold. The developer would be required to lease it from the Larrakia. If the company folded, they would obtain all of the assets and the land. In addition to that ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is again treading on dangerous ground.
Mr REED: In addition, the government would have to provide the Larrakia with a similar-sized area of land, which is currently owned by the taxpayer, for them to do what they want with. How does one negotiate with people who make demands as extreme as that? Doesn't that illustrate that `negotiate' plus `compromise' equals `dollars'? If members opposite can get that through their heads, they will understand that this is all about control - control of the beaches! This is no longer talking about people having to approach the Commonwealth or Territory government or a local government body if they want to undertake a development. They will have now to talk to the fourth arm of government - the native title holders. How will development proceed in this country? Development equals economic activity, which equals jobs, which equals the maintenance of our lifestyle.
This government will fight every inch of the way to ensure that these claims cannot be lodged over areas that have been developed by the taxpayer. If the Larrakia want a say in it, they can have a say in it along with everybody else. Why should they be elevated above other Territorians who, in cases such as Tracy Village, the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and the Alice Springs water supply, have paid to develop them and should now be able to enjoy them? Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They should reject outright the concept of claims over these areas. They should reject outright the prospect of fees and charges and compensation and they should support the CLP government in its endeavours to overcome this problem and enable Australians to be sure of tenure over their land and access to the areas they have enjoyed in the past and want to enjoy in the future.
Page 1960
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Jingili is indeed a great deal more aware of the impact that native title will have on the lifestyles of Territorians than are honourable members opposite. We have seen the shameful sight over the past week of these sittings of members opposite
Page 1957
going silent on Territorians' rights. The Leader of the Opposition now concedes native title over public areas, parks, reserves, social clubs. Tracy Village Social and Sports Club has 2500 members. The member for Wanguri is one of them, and he would not even get to his feet to support those 2500 members and say that he opposes the native title claim made over the club. We did not hear a word from him.
Ms Martin: You are a dill.
Mr REED: The member for Fannie Bay says I am a dill. Let us see who is the dill when she has to explain to her constituents that they will have to pay an entrance fee or user fee or compensation for continued use of Vesteys Beach or East Point Reserve.
Ms Martin: That is rubbish.
Mr REED: If you think it is rubbish, why don't you say that you oppose native title claims over these areas, that you oppose a levy of charges or fees and that you oppose the payment of compensation? These areas have been developed ...
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I have to shout, but I am sure people listening to this broadcast want to know the facts. If the opposition wants to shout over me, I will speak louder to get the message across. However, I should be able to do it in low, dulcet tones so that people can hear the facts. The facts are ...
Mr Bailey: They are lies and misleading statements.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will have an opportunity to ask other questions.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I ask that the member for Wanguri withdraw his comment about lies.
Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment but, if the member did refer to lies, he should withdraw the comment.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, we have the sorry picture of honourable members opposite not standing up for the rights of Territorians. The Leader of the Opposition, who has artfully dodged the question of compensation, says that she does not believe that entry fees will be charged. She artfully dodged the question of compensation that people now face the prospect of paying to be able to continue to access and use land that has been developed at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Casuarina Coastal Reserve is an example Hundreds of thousands of people enjoy that area each year and $1.5m has been spent on developing it for the benefit of those using it.
Ms Martin: It is not threatened.
Page 1958
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The member for Fannie Bay says that it is not threatened. If it is not threatened, why is it claimed?
The Leader of the Opposition tells us, together with her colleagues, that the way through this is to negotiate.
Mr Ah Kit: Yes.
Mr REED: `Yes', says the member for Arnhem. All right, now tell us what is to be negotiated. If there is no claim for entrance fees, if there is no claim for compensation, what is to be negotiated? There is nothing to negotiate for except dollars. May I illustrate ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: May I illustrate precisely why we are concerned about this claim. Let us assume - not that we can obtain it in writing from the Larrakia - that the claimants will not apply entry fees or user charges, or ask for compensation ...
Mr Bailey: They cannot.
Mr REED: If they do not obtain it from the government, from the taxpayer, they will certainly try to obtain it from elsewhere. I refer members to comments by Mr Risk, who was interviewed by Fred McCue on ABC radio this morning. He said:
What Larrakia people are trying to do is to negotiate a settlement with the NT government and developers over areas
where we can perhaps come to a compromise, where the public purse will not be touched at all, because it is really up
to developers who would foot the bill.
For `compromise' read `taxpayers dollars'. That is the first thing you have to read between the lines here. `... it is really up to developers who would foot the bill'. Fred McCue said: `Presumably, though, developers are going to have to pay something if they enter into negotiations with the Larrakia in the future'. Mr Risk replied: `That's right, yeah'. The cash register bells were ringing behind him. For example, he is talking about a native title in Stuart Park. They will negotiate with the developers. The developers will enter into an agreement to pay whatever compensation is necessary for the development of the block and away you go.
It is `away you go', all right. What happened to the aquaculture farmer? We still have not seen him. He went away and he will never come back. He offered the Larrakia 5% of a company that he intended to develop and $100 000 cash, along with ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1959
Mr REED: The Larrakia said that 5% of the company and $100 000 was not enough. They wanted $200 000. The ante went up, and that was still not enough. He offered them the $200 000 and they said: `Hang on! We have had another thought about this'. They thought they could squeeze the lemon a bit harder. They wanted 10% of the company and $250 000. The land would not be freehold. The developer would be required to lease it from the Larrakia. If the company folded, they would obtain all of the assets and the land. In addition to that ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is again treading on dangerous ground.
Mr REED: In addition, the government would have to provide the Larrakia with a similar-sized area of land, which is currently owned by the taxpayer, for them to do what they want with. How does one negotiate with people who make demands as extreme as that? Doesn't that illustrate that `negotiate' plus `compromise' equals `dollars'? If members opposite can get that through their heads, they will understand that this is all about control - control of the beaches! This is no longer talking about people having to approach the Commonwealth or Territory government or a local government body if they want to undertake a development. They will have now to talk to the fourth arm of government - the native title holders. How will development proceed in this country? Development equals economic activity, which equals jobs, which equals the maintenance of our lifestyle.
This government will fight every inch of the way to ensure that these claims cannot be lodged over areas that have been developed by the taxpayer. If the Larrakia want a say in it, they can have a say in it along with everybody else. Why should they be elevated above other Territorians who, in cases such as Tracy Village, the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and the Alice Springs water supply, have paid to develop them and should now be able to enjoy them? Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They should reject outright the concept of claims over these areas. They should reject outright the prospect of fees and charges and compensation and they should support the CLP government in its endeavours to overcome this problem and enable Australians to be sure of tenure over their land and access to the areas they have enjoyed in the past and want to enjoy in the future.
Page 1960
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016