Dr LIM - 1995-05-17
I understand that the minister participated recently in the handover of Aboriginal titles at Lake Amadeus. Will the minister explain the details of the settlement of this long-standing dispute?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, on 4 May, I had the pleasure of attending a function at the King's Canyon Resort with Hon Robert Tickner, the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, when titles were granted in settlement of what has been a very long and difficult land claim process known in that region as the Lake Amadeus Land Claim. The Northern Territory's role in this land claim was probably regarded as unusual. This government has often been accused of opposing all land claims and blocking them. In respect of the Lake Amadeus Land Claim, the Northern Territory government challenged the traditional evidence on the basis that the Central Land Council was proposing the wrong people as the claimants. Interestingly, we won. The land claim process revealed that the Central Land Council's work had been deficient. In fact, on the claim book, it had a significant number of the wrong people claiming title to traditional country whilst other people, who had been pressing the council to be included in the claim book, had been excluded. They were the people on whose behalf we made representations.
Mr Bell: This is rewriting history. Is that why you ran it to the High Court?
Mr HATTON: I will not go over the issue. Nobody comes out of this exercise pure. Lake Amadeus was originally part of the Uluru or Ayers Rock land claim. It was withdrawn from that claim and subsequently the Lake Amadeus claim was lodged. Subsequent to lodgment of that claim, the Northern Territory government issued a 20-year pastoral lease over what became known as King's Creek Station. At that time, it was the view of the government that repeat land claims were not permissible under the Land Rights Act. That matter went to the High Court and we lost that court case. The lease grant was held to be invalid, and that
Page 543
placed the Northern Territory government in a very sticky situation. I do not dodge that at all. I openly admit our error in that regard.
However, it is still true that, in the land claim process before Aboriginal Land Commissioner Maurice, it was the Northern Territory government, on behalf of Aboriginal constituents of the member for MacDonnell, that got it right and ensured that the correct people found themselves listed in the recommendations in the land claim report to the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I know the member for MacDonnell understands and knows that.
Mr Bell: You are giving yourself a little more credit than you deserve here, Steve.
Members interjecting.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell is twisting things around a bit himself at the moment.
Mrs Hickey: Unlike the member for Nightcliff.
Mr HATTON: I am happy to debate this. I will table this map of the claim area because that land claim report was received by the federal minister in 1987. That is when the matter was resolved so far as the Aboriginal Land Commissioner was concerned. Under the Land Rights Act, the commissioner is able only to find that the land is available for claim, assess which people are eligible to claim and determine the third party detriment issues. All the decisions are the responsibility of the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That minister has the power to accept, reject, vary or do whatever he likes in respect of a land claim. Since 1987, the report has been sitting on the minister's desk.
Mr Bailey: How long have we been waiting for a decision on the Cobourg marine park?
Mr HATTON: I am happy to stand here one day and go through such matters. How long did it take the federal minister to make decisions in relation to the claims in and around Tennant Creek? They sat on his desk from 1984.
Mrs Hickey: And who frustrated the process for 13 years?
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, it took him 10 years to do that. In general, federal ministers have refused consistently to carry out their responsibilities for resolving the detriment issues and making a decision.
In respect of this particular claim, I give credit where it is due. In my view, Minister Tickner acted quite well. I am praising Minister Tickner, because he worked ...
Mr Ede: Say it!
Mr HATTON: I just did. He worked very hard for a resolution. Our government worked with him on this process. The reason why I table this map is that the settlement finally
Page 544
resolves claims to 2 small areas under the Land Rights Act. In general, this claim was not settled under the Land Rights Act except for 2 small areas granted to Aboriginal people under that act. The vast majority of the land, about 2500 km2, was issued as freehold title under the Northern Territory Crown Lands Act. Freehold title to part of the land for the homestead and infrastructure of King's Creek Station went to the Conway family. There was also a long-term agreement for Aboriginal freehold land to be leased back to the Conways for their camel farming operation.
Mr Bell: What were the terms of the agreements?
Mr HATTON: I have just been through that.
Mr Speaker, I table this map to show honourable members the layout. This is a case where the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government have been able to work cooperatively to deal with what undoubtedly has been an extraordinarily emotional and complex matter.
Mr Bell: What were the terms of the lease-back agreements?
Mr HATTON: I do not have the details. I will make them available to the honourable member.
I make those comments particularly because Mr Tickner and I worked together on this. Even Tracker Tilmouth of the Central Land Council actually said that it was good that we were able to work cooperatively. However, Warren Snowdon ...
Mr Bailey: Talk to the member for Leanyer if you want to talk about working cooperatively.
Mr HATTON: Warren Snowdon, who spoke last, delivered a diatribe. It was an amazing speech about how it was all a wonderful job by the Central Land Council against the devilish CLP government which fought and blocked the land claim process. I must say that Minister Tickner was looking at his feet and shuffling them. The Aboriginal people were quite embarrassed and ashamed by the way he carried on. He cannot help himself. He had to launch an anti-CLP assault even though he had his facts wrong about this land claim process. We know it is his policy to try at every opportunity to cause division and antagonism between the CLP government and Aboriginal people. Every time he speaks, his total objective is to do that. He has a soul mate in this House.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr HATTON: I refer, in particular, to the member for MacDonnell. I will give an example. Simultaneously with the federal member, the member for MacDonnell started spruiking some nonsense and misleading the public about my views and those of the Chief Minister and the CLP government in relation to the Alice Springs native title claim with the sole intention of generating antagonism.
Mr Bell: Exposing the difference and the hypocrisy.
Page 545
Mr HATTON: If we are saying something different or going in an opposite direction, he has a right to point that out. However, he had better be right. Snowdon claimed the Chief Minister had stated that the Territory government was refusing to negotiate in respect of the Alice Springs native title claim. The truth is that, in his press release and in his letter to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister stated clearly that we were `determined to reach a satisfactory resolution of the legitimate aspirations of the traditional owners in relation to Alice Springs'.
Mr Ede: By negotiation?
Mr HATTON: Those are the words in the letter and they are consistent with a press release issued by the Chief Minister. They are consistent with the views expressed by myself both as Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government and as Minister for Aboriginal Development. Members on this side do not deny the fact that there are people whose traditional country is Alice Springs and who have retained an attachment to that land. We do not deny that at all. We are seeking mechanisms to work together to reach ideally some regional agreement in respect of that issue.
Our difficulty is that we are now dealing with another federal act - the Native Title Act - which provides certain stipulations, criteria and legal rights. Those are quite separate from legal rights in relation to which our government has said it is prepared to attempt to come to some accommodation. In our view, the Native Title Tribunal, in its determinations, acted contrary to the law. Our real concern is that mean-minded individuals with malicious motives will attempt to use the fact that we are trying simply to have law clarified and ensure the tribunal carries out its functions properly in order once again to paint us as being anti-Aboriginal. That is clearly not the case. As a responsible government, surely we should ask a federal statutory authority to do its job properly. We should be able to assert our legal rights dispassionately, notwithstanding the fact that, on social and other grounds, we are prepared to sit down with the traditional people of Alice Springs and reach a resolution. That is the difference. The member for MacDonnell and Warren Snowdon want to create the division. We are trying to create a reconciliation and a recognition of the law.
Page 546
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, on 4 May, I had the pleasure of attending a function at the King's Canyon Resort with Hon Robert Tickner, the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, when titles were granted in settlement of what has been a very long and difficult land claim process known in that region as the Lake Amadeus Land Claim. The Northern Territory's role in this land claim was probably regarded as unusual. This government has often been accused of opposing all land claims and blocking them. In respect of the Lake Amadeus Land Claim, the Northern Territory government challenged the traditional evidence on the basis that the Central Land Council was proposing the wrong people as the claimants. Interestingly, we won. The land claim process revealed that the Central Land Council's work had been deficient. In fact, on the claim book, it had a significant number of the wrong people claiming title to traditional country whilst other people, who had been pressing the council to be included in the claim book, had been excluded. They were the people on whose behalf we made representations.
Mr Bell: This is rewriting history. Is that why you ran it to the High Court?
Mr HATTON: I will not go over the issue. Nobody comes out of this exercise pure. Lake Amadeus was originally part of the Uluru or Ayers Rock land claim. It was withdrawn from that claim and subsequently the Lake Amadeus claim was lodged. Subsequent to lodgment of that claim, the Northern Territory government issued a 20-year pastoral lease over what became known as King's Creek Station. At that time, it was the view of the government that repeat land claims were not permissible under the Land Rights Act. That matter went to the High Court and we lost that court case. The lease grant was held to be invalid, and that
Page 543
placed the Northern Territory government in a very sticky situation. I do not dodge that at all. I openly admit our error in that regard.
However, it is still true that, in the land claim process before Aboriginal Land Commissioner Maurice, it was the Northern Territory government, on behalf of Aboriginal constituents of the member for MacDonnell, that got it right and ensured that the correct people found themselves listed in the recommendations in the land claim report to the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. I know the member for MacDonnell understands and knows that.
Mr Bell: You are giving yourself a little more credit than you deserve here, Steve.
Members interjecting.
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell is twisting things around a bit himself at the moment.
Mrs Hickey: Unlike the member for Nightcliff.
Mr HATTON: I am happy to debate this. I will table this map of the claim area because that land claim report was received by the federal minister in 1987. That is when the matter was resolved so far as the Aboriginal Land Commissioner was concerned. Under the Land Rights Act, the commissioner is able only to find that the land is available for claim, assess which people are eligible to claim and determine the third party detriment issues. All the decisions are the responsibility of the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. That minister has the power to accept, reject, vary or do whatever he likes in respect of a land claim. Since 1987, the report has been sitting on the minister's desk.
Mr Bailey: How long have we been waiting for a decision on the Cobourg marine park?
Mr HATTON: I am happy to stand here one day and go through such matters. How long did it take the federal minister to make decisions in relation to the claims in and around Tennant Creek? They sat on his desk from 1984.
Mrs Hickey: And who frustrated the process for 13 years?
Mr HATTON: Mr Speaker, it took him 10 years to do that. In general, federal ministers have refused consistently to carry out their responsibilities for resolving the detriment issues and making a decision.
In respect of this particular claim, I give credit where it is due. In my view, Minister Tickner acted quite well. I am praising Minister Tickner, because he worked ...
Mr Ede: Say it!
Mr HATTON: I just did. He worked very hard for a resolution. Our government worked with him on this process. The reason why I table this map is that the settlement finally
Page 544
resolves claims to 2 small areas under the Land Rights Act. In general, this claim was not settled under the Land Rights Act except for 2 small areas granted to Aboriginal people under that act. The vast majority of the land, about 2500 km2, was issued as freehold title under the Northern Territory Crown Lands Act. Freehold title to part of the land for the homestead and infrastructure of King's Creek Station went to the Conway family. There was also a long-term agreement for Aboriginal freehold land to be leased back to the Conways for their camel farming operation.
Mr Bell: What were the terms of the agreements?
Mr HATTON: I have just been through that.
Mr Speaker, I table this map to show honourable members the layout. This is a case where the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government have been able to work cooperatively to deal with what undoubtedly has been an extraordinarily emotional and complex matter.
Mr Bell: What were the terms of the lease-back agreements?
Mr HATTON: I do not have the details. I will make them available to the honourable member.
I make those comments particularly because Mr Tickner and I worked together on this. Even Tracker Tilmouth of the Central Land Council actually said that it was good that we were able to work cooperatively. However, Warren Snowdon ...
Mr Bailey: Talk to the member for Leanyer if you want to talk about working cooperatively.
Mr HATTON: Warren Snowdon, who spoke last, delivered a diatribe. It was an amazing speech about how it was all a wonderful job by the Central Land Council against the devilish CLP government which fought and blocked the land claim process. I must say that Minister Tickner was looking at his feet and shuffling them. The Aboriginal people were quite embarrassed and ashamed by the way he carried on. He cannot help himself. He had to launch an anti-CLP assault even though he had his facts wrong about this land claim process. We know it is his policy to try at every opportunity to cause division and antagonism between the CLP government and Aboriginal people. Every time he speaks, his total objective is to do that. He has a soul mate in this House.
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr HATTON: I refer, in particular, to the member for MacDonnell. I will give an example. Simultaneously with the federal member, the member for MacDonnell started spruiking some nonsense and misleading the public about my views and those of the Chief Minister and the CLP government in relation to the Alice Springs native title claim with the sole intention of generating antagonism.
Mr Bell: Exposing the difference and the hypocrisy.
Page 545
Mr HATTON: If we are saying something different or going in an opposite direction, he has a right to point that out. However, he had better be right. Snowdon claimed the Chief Minister had stated that the Territory government was refusing to negotiate in respect of the Alice Springs native title claim. The truth is that, in his press release and in his letter to the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister stated clearly that we were `determined to reach a satisfactory resolution of the legitimate aspirations of the traditional owners in relation to Alice Springs'.
Mr Ede: By negotiation?
Mr HATTON: Those are the words in the letter and they are consistent with a press release issued by the Chief Minister. They are consistent with the views expressed by myself both as Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government and as Minister for Aboriginal Development. Members on this side do not deny the fact that there are people whose traditional country is Alice Springs and who have retained an attachment to that land. We do not deny that at all. We are seeking mechanisms to work together to reach ideally some regional agreement in respect of that issue.
Our difficulty is that we are now dealing with another federal act - the Native Title Act - which provides certain stipulations, criteria and legal rights. Those are quite separate from legal rights in relation to which our government has said it is prepared to attempt to come to some accommodation. In our view, the Native Title Tribunal, in its determinations, acted contrary to the law. Our real concern is that mean-minded individuals with malicious motives will attempt to use the fact that we are trying simply to have law clarified and ensure the tribunal carries out its functions properly in order once again to paint us as being anti-Aboriginal. That is clearly not the case. As a responsible government, surely we should ask a federal statutory authority to do its job properly. We should be able to assert our legal rights dispassionately, notwithstanding the fact that, on social and other grounds, we are prepared to sit down with the traditional people of Alice Springs and reach a resolution. That is the difference. The member for MacDonnell and Warren Snowdon want to create the division. We are trying to create a reconciliation and a recognition of the law.
Page 546
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016