Mr MITCHELL - 1994-11-29
Yesterday, we heard in the media of 2 native title claims encompassing the planned new port development at East Arm. Can the minister assure Territorians that development of the project is in no danger of being blocked?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the short answer is that I can assure Territorians that development of the East Arm port is in no danger of being blocked. I should note that native title matters will be a continuing issue in any land title dealing in the Northern Territory. Since the High Court's Mabo decision, it has become inevitable that our land administrators must address these issues because of what I regard as a very poorly drafted legislative response to the High Court's decision. All governments and other parties are wrestling to attempt to ascertain its meaning. No doubt, many lawyers and courts will make a fortune as we attempt to pick our way through the legislation and put some sense into the process.
Be that as it may, in September 1994, as part of the development of the port precinct, the government, using the processes under the Native Title Act, moved for the compulsory acquisition of land in the East Arm area that is strategic for the new port development. There are procedures provided for under the Native Title Act whereby governments can acquire compulsorily any native title that may exist in respect of land that is to be used for public purposes. Quite clearly, this would include the construction of major port infrastructure to be operated by the Port Authority. These procedures do not accept or deny the existence of native title but state that, if native title exists, the government may acquire the land compulsorily to enable the work to proceed. The government also extinguished any native title over that land. Once again, that is permitted in the Native Title Act when the land in question is to be developed for public purposes.
I noted in the media comments yesterday that the Northern Land Council states continually that the claims will not affect the Port of Darwin. While that is encouraging, I point out that they could not do so in any case. Nevertheless, the land council is recognising that. I am advised that the 2 claims were lodged with the Native Title Tribunal on 16 and 17 November. I have yet to see the documents that were provided to the Department of Law
Page 337
by facsimile only last night. Thus, I do not know the precise details. The claims have yet to be considered by the registrar and have not yet been accepted formally by the tribunal. The process is starting now, as it is in respect of other claims around the Territory. I understand that these claims are a matter of process only and will lead to an eventual claim for compensation under the Native Title Act. Given that we have moved to acquire the land compulsorily, as we were required to do under the native title legislation, the issues emerging now are whether or not native title exists - that still needs to be tested - and, if it does, the appropriate level of compensation. In either of those scenarios, thecontinuing development of the East Arm port will not be affected.
Page 338
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the short answer is that I can assure Territorians that development of the East Arm port is in no danger of being blocked. I should note that native title matters will be a continuing issue in any land title dealing in the Northern Territory. Since the High Court's Mabo decision, it has become inevitable that our land administrators must address these issues because of what I regard as a very poorly drafted legislative response to the High Court's decision. All governments and other parties are wrestling to attempt to ascertain its meaning. No doubt, many lawyers and courts will make a fortune as we attempt to pick our way through the legislation and put some sense into the process.
Be that as it may, in September 1994, as part of the development of the port precinct, the government, using the processes under the Native Title Act, moved for the compulsory acquisition of land in the East Arm area that is strategic for the new port development. There are procedures provided for under the Native Title Act whereby governments can acquire compulsorily any native title that may exist in respect of land that is to be used for public purposes. Quite clearly, this would include the construction of major port infrastructure to be operated by the Port Authority. These procedures do not accept or deny the existence of native title but state that, if native title exists, the government may acquire the land compulsorily to enable the work to proceed. The government also extinguished any native title over that land. Once again, that is permitted in the Native Title Act when the land in question is to be developed for public purposes.
I noted in the media comments yesterday that the Northern Land Council states continually that the claims will not affect the Port of Darwin. While that is encouraging, I point out that they could not do so in any case. Nevertheless, the land council is recognising that. I am advised that the 2 claims were lodged with the Native Title Tribunal on 16 and 17 November. I have yet to see the documents that were provided to the Department of Law
Page 337
by facsimile only last night. Thus, I do not know the precise details. The claims have yet to be considered by the registrar and have not yet been accepted formally by the tribunal. The process is starting now, as it is in respect of other claims around the Territory. I understand that these claims are a matter of process only and will lead to an eventual claim for compensation under the Native Title Act. Given that we have moved to acquire the land compulsorily, as we were required to do under the native title legislation, the issues emerging now are whether or not native title exists - that still needs to be tested - and, if it does, the appropriate level of compensation. In either of those scenarios, thecontinuing development of the East Arm port will not be affected.
Page 338
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016