Mr BALDWIN - 1996-05-21
What is his response to statements by the Northern Land Council that native title claims will be worthless if the federal government introduces greater flexibility for pastoral leases?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria River for his question. I watched, on last night's television news, the chairman of ATSIC, Lois O'Donoghue, describe as 'cowboys' those state administrations, including the Territory, which would argue the case for legislative change to make it clear once and for all that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: Members opposite may laugh ...
Mr Bell: You ought to be ashamed of yourself ...
Page 1384
Mr STONE: ... and the member for MacDonnell may interject, but I guess that statement makes Paul Keating a cowboy. It was Paul Keating who stood up publicly with his ministers and said that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Yesterday, there was an opinion piece written in The Australian by the chairman of the Northern Land Council, headlined: 'Last Nail in the Coffin of our Reconciliation'. Let me make it clear that the last nail in the coffin of reconciliation is when a deal is negotiated between the so-called 'A-Team', the Aboriginal negotiators, and the Prime Minister of the day that agrees unequivocally that pastoral leases extinguish native title in exchange for the establishment of a $1200m land-acquisition fund. There are no losers in such a deal. Under such a deal, Aboriginal interests and organisations gain the capacity to convert Aboriginal pastoral holdings to native title, while the pastoral industry and other landowners have the certainty of knowing that pastoral leases extinguish native title. That would allow us to get on with the business of living together in peace and with reconciliation achieved. However, there has been an absolute backflip because that agreement was not enshrined in the legislation. Despite the undertakings given by the then Prime Minister, we are now left with all parties at war with one another.
Mr Ah Kit: What about the position of this Prime Minister? Are you out of step with that?
Mr STONE: To answer the member for Arnhem's interjection, this Prime Minister would prefer to let the High Court decide the matter. He would prefer to let the High Court extinguish native title. As I said in my ministerial statement last week, governments are elected to govern. The courts are not elected to govern. When people vote a particular party into government, they expect it to perform and they expect it to do what it said that it would do. Leaving matters to the courts is not my idea of good government.
I make it clear, for those Aboriginal spokesmen who would continue to advocate that the deal is off - 'No, that is not what we meant, we want to have our cake and eat it too' - that they damage the whole cause of reconciliation more than they can imagine. People sat down and agreed to a formula. It was a trade-off. The trade-off was that pastoral leases extinguished native title and that Aboriginal organisations gained $1200m of public money for land acquisition. Now they have turned around and said that they want the land and the $1200m. If people do not think that that causes bad feeling and mistrust, they are on another planet.
Mr Ah Kit: You do not support the Prime Minister. He has it wrong, has he?
Mr STONE: The simple fact is ...
Mr Ah Kit: Has John Howard got it wrong?
Mr STONE: ... that that is what was agreed.
Let us have no doubt about where the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council ...
Page 1385
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us that John Howard has got it wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: It is to be expected that the member for Arnhem will continue interjecting. After all, he was, for many years, a flunkey of one of the land councils. That is what we would expect from him by way of interjection.
If anyone wants to know the real agenda of these people, who do not stand by their agreements, who renege and who cannot be trusted, they should go back to the statements of Mick Dodson. This is what he had to say in The Bulletin of 11 February 1992:
My view is that the whole of the pastoral estate of the Northern Territory should be subject to land claim
settlement. All aspects of land use should be assessed on economic, cultural and environmental grounds and
Aboriginal people, through their land councils, and the pastoral industry should sit down and carve it up.
They should sit down and carve up the whole of the pastoral estate of the Northern Territory! If you take the 48% that is already subject to the Land Rights Act and add to it the 48% that is pastoral lease, then you have 96% or more of the Territory subject to claim. Members opposite have an opportunity to stand up and be counted on this issue. The former Leader of the Opposition sought last week to renege on the comments that had been attributed to him when he said pastoral leases extinguish native title. He said last week that he did not say that.
Mr Ede: I did not say that.
Mr STONE: He said: 'I was misunderstood'.
Mr Ede: No.
Mr STONE: There was an interjection earlier that I might be out of step with the Prime Minister. Let us see what the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has to say:
The government does seem to have picked up the same sort of legal advice that we had - that is, that the
view we held on pastoral leases will hold good and will be substantiated in the High Court.
In other words, federal Labor still believes that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Mr Ede: This is what I am saying!
Mr STONE: Oh, so you are back onside again? You support it again?
Mr Ah Kit: We are in tune with the Prime Minister.
Mr STONE: You lot are beyond the pale!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1386
Mr STONE: What do you stand for? You certainly do not stand for Territorians and you are quite happy for this division in Australian society to continue while the uncertainty of native title continues. I challenge members opposite to show me what Aboriginal people, particularly Aboriginal Territorians, have gained from the Mabo decision to date. Nothing! Why is that? It is because of the uncertainty that continues. I will not be persuaded not to be critical of a federal government that may be the same political colour as my own. I will stand here and call upon the Coalition government to legislate to make it clear, once and for all, that native title is extinguished by pastoral leases.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Members opposite may duck and weave all they want. The former Leader of the Opposition may pretend that he did not say it, but he did. Now that he has been banished to the backbench, he feels that he has the luxury of walking away from what he said. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that she also subscribes to the view that pastoral leases extinguish native title. Let her demonstrate that she will stand up for Territorians. Let us have no more of this nonsense about letting the High Court govern Australia when we have an elected federal government to do it.
Page 1387
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Victoria River for his question. I watched, on last night's television news, the chairman of ATSIC, Lois O'Donoghue, describe as 'cowboys' those state administrations, including the Territory, which would argue the case for legislative change to make it clear once and for all that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: Members opposite may laugh ...
Mr Bell: You ought to be ashamed of yourself ...
Page 1384
Mr STONE: ... and the member for MacDonnell may interject, but I guess that statement makes Paul Keating a cowboy. It was Paul Keating who stood up publicly with his ministers and said that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Yesterday, there was an opinion piece written in The Australian by the chairman of the Northern Land Council, headlined: 'Last Nail in the Coffin of our Reconciliation'. Let me make it clear that the last nail in the coffin of reconciliation is when a deal is negotiated between the so-called 'A-Team', the Aboriginal negotiators, and the Prime Minister of the day that agrees unequivocally that pastoral leases extinguish native title in exchange for the establishment of a $1200m land-acquisition fund. There are no losers in such a deal. Under such a deal, Aboriginal interests and organisations gain the capacity to convert Aboriginal pastoral holdings to native title, while the pastoral industry and other landowners have the certainty of knowing that pastoral leases extinguish native title. That would allow us to get on with the business of living together in peace and with reconciliation achieved. However, there has been an absolute backflip because that agreement was not enshrined in the legislation. Despite the undertakings given by the then Prime Minister, we are now left with all parties at war with one another.
Mr Ah Kit: What about the position of this Prime Minister? Are you out of step with that?
Mr STONE: To answer the member for Arnhem's interjection, this Prime Minister would prefer to let the High Court decide the matter. He would prefer to let the High Court extinguish native title. As I said in my ministerial statement last week, governments are elected to govern. The courts are not elected to govern. When people vote a particular party into government, they expect it to perform and they expect it to do what it said that it would do. Leaving matters to the courts is not my idea of good government.
I make it clear, for those Aboriginal spokesmen who would continue to advocate that the deal is off - 'No, that is not what we meant, we want to have our cake and eat it too' - that they damage the whole cause of reconciliation more than they can imagine. People sat down and agreed to a formula. It was a trade-off. The trade-off was that pastoral leases extinguished native title and that Aboriginal organisations gained $1200m of public money for land acquisition. Now they have turned around and said that they want the land and the $1200m. If people do not think that that causes bad feeling and mistrust, they are on another planet.
Mr Ah Kit: You do not support the Prime Minister. He has it wrong, has he?
Mr STONE: The simple fact is ...
Mr Ah Kit: Has John Howard got it wrong?
Mr STONE: ... that that is what was agreed.
Let us have no doubt about where the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council ...
Page 1385
Mr Ah Kit: Tell us that John Howard has got it wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: It is to be expected that the member for Arnhem will continue interjecting. After all, he was, for many years, a flunkey of one of the land councils. That is what we would expect from him by way of interjection.
If anyone wants to know the real agenda of these people, who do not stand by their agreements, who renege and who cannot be trusted, they should go back to the statements of Mick Dodson. This is what he had to say in The Bulletin of 11 February 1992:
My view is that the whole of the pastoral estate of the Northern Territory should be subject to land claim
settlement. All aspects of land use should be assessed on economic, cultural and environmental grounds and
Aboriginal people, through their land councils, and the pastoral industry should sit down and carve it up.
They should sit down and carve up the whole of the pastoral estate of the Northern Territory! If you take the 48% that is already subject to the Land Rights Act and add to it the 48% that is pastoral lease, then you have 96% or more of the Territory subject to claim. Members opposite have an opportunity to stand up and be counted on this issue. The former Leader of the Opposition sought last week to renege on the comments that had been attributed to him when he said pastoral leases extinguish native title. He said last week that he did not say that.
Mr Ede: I did not say that.
Mr STONE: He said: 'I was misunderstood'.
Mr Ede: No.
Mr STONE: There was an interjection earlier that I might be out of step with the Prime Minister. Let us see what the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has to say:
The government does seem to have picked up the same sort of legal advice that we had - that is, that the
view we held on pastoral leases will hold good and will be substantiated in the High Court.
In other words, federal Labor still believes that pastoral leases extinguish native title.
Mr Ede: This is what I am saying!
Mr STONE: Oh, so you are back onside again? You support it again?
Mr Ah Kit: We are in tune with the Prime Minister.
Mr STONE: You lot are beyond the pale!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1386
Mr STONE: What do you stand for? You certainly do not stand for Territorians and you are quite happy for this division in Australian society to continue while the uncertainty of native title continues. I challenge members opposite to show me what Aboriginal people, particularly Aboriginal Territorians, have gained from the Mabo decision to date. Nothing! Why is that? It is because of the uncertainty that continues. I will not be persuaded not to be critical of a federal government that may be the same political colour as my own. I will stand here and call upon the Coalition government to legislate to make it clear, once and for all, that native title is extinguished by pastoral leases.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Members opposite may duck and weave all they want. The former Leader of the Opposition may pretend that he did not say it, but he did. Now that he has been banished to the backbench, he feels that he has the luxury of walking away from what he said. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that she also subscribes to the view that pastoral leases extinguish native title. Let her demonstrate that she will stand up for Territorians. Let us have no more of this nonsense about letting the High Court govern Australia when we have an elected federal government to do it.
Page 1387
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016