Mr ADAMSON - 1997-02-20
As all Territorians would be aware, art is an important part of their culture, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Does native title have any implications for Territory art works?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the arts are a very valued part of Territory life for all Territorians, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Statistically, the Territory ranks in the top 3 among Australian states and territories for the percentage of the population attending events, across all the arts, both visual and participatory. I shall table a series of figures that attest to the popularity of the arts and participation in the arts in the Territory.
Many of the visual arts in the Territory are based on the inspiration that is drawn by Territory artists from our remarkable landscape. Those works are admired, not only throughout Australia, but around the world. Territory art is represented in national and international galleries, and in many private galleries and private residences. I am very pleased to say that the Territory government has an excellent record in supporting the arts, and has done since self-government because we believe that it is part of the quality of life that Territorians like to participate in.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that this area of Territory life has also come under the threatening shadow of native title. In January this year, it was reported in the media that the Federal Court is to hear a test case to see whether native title rights extend to works of art. This is what that media report had to say:
artist, John Bullen Bullen, appeared on printed fabric imported by a Queensland company.
That company subsequently admitted to breaching copyright. Other senior members of the
Gunbalanya are now also claiming damages. They say, as native title holders and traditional
owners of the country, they have rights over art work arising from their ownership of the
country.
There was also a radio interview recently in which it was stated that, in May this year, the Federal Court will be asked to rule on the relationship between native title and art works. A barrister made the following statement:
That is really what this new case is about - whether or not the right to paint can be recognised
in Australia law as being part of an Aboriginal person's land rights ... It is conceivable that
situations may arise where copyright cannot be
Page 1924
proved, or the artist involved has allowed the reproduction that has caused the offence and,
in those cases, other Aboriginal people may wish to take action.
I think that Territorians would be ...
Mr Ah Kit: You cannot understand them.
Mr MANZIE: I will tell you what it means. Territorians would be outraged at the prospect ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I am not aware of the particular case that the member for Sanderson is talking about but, on the basis of what he has said, that case is apparently before the Federal Court and therefore is sub judice.
Mr BELL: Yes, it is a civil matter. That is right. I am pleased that the Chief Minister interjects ...
Mr Stone: He is repeating what has been broadcast.
Mr BELL: Mr Speaker, you will recall that there have been numerous circumstances in which government ministers have refused to answer questions because civil matters have been sub judice I suggest that the member for Sanderson's speculation about this particular case and its outcome and the issues involved is in breach of the sub judice principle.
Mr Stone: You don't want this story told.
Mr BELL: I am quite happy for it to be told. I think it is an important issue.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell knows what this is about. He is trying to silence ...
Mr Bell: I do not.
Mr MANZIE: He is trying to prevent Territorians from hearing about another area where native title will interfere with their lives. I am not referring to a specific case. I am talking in general terms about possibilities. I quoted ...
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: If the member for MacDonnell would be quiet, he and other people could hear what I am saying. Members opposite are very sensitive about this. You would think they would stand up for Territorians. You would think they would realise that Territorians have a right to live and operate as other Australians. You would think they would stand up against some of the limitations on our quality of life that may result from native title. They are obviously trying to stop the community from hearing this.
Page 1925
I was quoting a barrister who spoke on the ABC. It has already been broadcast publicly. I will finish by saying ...
Mr Bailey: What about the point of order? We want a ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the minister not to refer to a specific case but to speak in general terms about the subject.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, it appears ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Under standing order 112, a minister cannot be asked to express a legal opinion. His opening comment - `It is my understanding' - implies that he is expressing an opinion, but not in relation to an area for which he has any responsibility or expertise. Mr Speaker, there are standing orders that you love to enforce, and often do in my case, even when no member raises a point of order. You want to maintain the integrity of the parliamentary process. I am merely asking you to do the same in relation to the government.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr MANZIE: You would think, Mr Speaker, that the opposition would have genuine concerns about the implications of native title. Not only do they not have concerns, they wish to prevent the community ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: The member for Fannie Bay does not want people to know. Remember that she hid the maps that described the native title area. The Labor Party obviously has a plot to prevent people ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I put on the public record last year that the Chief Minister lied on 3 occasions. You did not object to that.
Mr SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I will withdraw it, although I notice that you enforce some rules and not others.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Wanguri to withdraw that last remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the right of Territory artists to depict landscapes. I am talking about a landscape like this - a Territory landscape which all
Page 1926
Territorians, especially those in the north, enjoy. It was painted by a well-known Territory artist. Will this be subject to copyright?
Mr Ah Kit: I doubt it.
Mr MANZIE: You may doubt it, but there is legal action pending which may make that the case.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the minister is not talking about a legal opinion, I do not know what he is doing. He is specifically saying that this will be legally outlawed. If that is not a legal opinion that he is trying to offer, what is it?
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, this is a native title issue - the same as pastoral leases and mining leases - with the possibility of compensation having to be paid to people under native title rules. We are talking about the possibility of having to pay compensation for the painting of Territory scenery if the land concerned is under native title. Members opposite should be concerned about that. They are not concerned. They hide their heads in the sand or they deny it.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe the minister is referring to a specific case. He is speaking in general terms. There is no point of order.
Mr MANZIE: I will close by saying that I am writing to the federal Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston, to ensure that the implications of the Native Title Act with regard to art and practising artists is brought to the attention of those concerned in drafting amendments to the native title legislation. I would expect support from the ALP for the benefit of the Territory community.
Page 1927
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the arts are a very valued part of Territory life for all Territorians, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. Statistically, the Territory ranks in the top 3 among Australian states and territories for the percentage of the population attending events, across all the arts, both visual and participatory. I shall table a series of figures that attest to the popularity of the arts and participation in the arts in the Territory.
Many of the visual arts in the Territory are based on the inspiration that is drawn by Territory artists from our remarkable landscape. Those works are admired, not only throughout Australia, but around the world. Territory art is represented in national and international galleries, and in many private galleries and private residences. I am very pleased to say that the Territory government has an excellent record in supporting the arts, and has done since self-government because we believe that it is part of the quality of life that Territorians like to participate in.
I was genuinely shocked to find out that this area of Territory life has also come under the threatening shadow of native title. In January this year, it was reported in the media that the Federal Court is to hear a test case to see whether native title rights extend to works of art. This is what that media report had to say:
artist, John Bullen Bullen, appeared on printed fabric imported by a Queensland company.
That company subsequently admitted to breaching copyright. Other senior members of the
Gunbalanya are now also claiming damages. They say, as native title holders and traditional
owners of the country, they have rights over art work arising from their ownership of the
country.
There was also a radio interview recently in which it was stated that, in May this year, the Federal Court will be asked to rule on the relationship between native title and art works. A barrister made the following statement:
That is really what this new case is about - whether or not the right to paint can be recognised
in Australia law as being part of an Aboriginal person's land rights ... It is conceivable that
situations may arise where copyright cannot be
Page 1924
proved, or the artist involved has allowed the reproduction that has caused the offence and,
in those cases, other Aboriginal people may wish to take action.
I think that Territorians would be ...
Mr Ah Kit: You cannot understand them.
Mr MANZIE: I will tell you what it means. Territorians would be outraged at the prospect ...
Mr BELL: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I am not aware of the particular case that the member for Sanderson is talking about but, on the basis of what he has said, that case is apparently before the Federal Court and therefore is sub judice.
Mr BELL: Yes, it is a civil matter. That is right. I am pleased that the Chief Minister interjects ...
Mr Stone: He is repeating what has been broadcast.
Mr BELL: Mr Speaker, you will recall that there have been numerous circumstances in which government ministers have refused to answer questions because civil matters have been sub judice I suggest that the member for Sanderson's speculation about this particular case and its outcome and the issues involved is in breach of the sub judice principle.
Mr Stone: You don't want this story told.
Mr BELL: I am quite happy for it to be told. I think it is an important issue.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell knows what this is about. He is trying to silence ...
Mr Bell: I do not.
Mr MANZIE: He is trying to prevent Territorians from hearing about another area where native title will interfere with their lives. I am not referring to a specific case. I am talking in general terms about possibilities. I quoted ...
Mr Bell interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: If the member for MacDonnell would be quiet, he and other people could hear what I am saying. Members opposite are very sensitive about this. You would think they would stand up for Territorians. You would think they would realise that Territorians have a right to live and operate as other Australians. You would think they would stand up against some of the limitations on our quality of life that may result from native title. They are obviously trying to stop the community from hearing this.
Page 1925
I was quoting a barrister who spoke on the ABC. It has already been broadcast publicly. I will finish by saying ...
Mr Bailey: What about the point of order? We want a ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I ask the minister not to refer to a specific case but to speak in general terms about the subject.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, it appears ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! Under standing order 112, a minister cannot be asked to express a legal opinion. His opening comment - `It is my understanding' - implies that he is expressing an opinion, but not in relation to an area for which he has any responsibility or expertise. Mr Speaker, there are standing orders that you love to enforce, and often do in my case, even when no member raises a point of order. You want to maintain the integrity of the parliamentary process. I am merely asking you to do the same in relation to the government.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr MANZIE: You would think, Mr Speaker, that the opposition would have genuine concerns about the implications of native title. Not only do they not have concerns, they wish to prevent the community ...
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr MANZIE: The member for Fannie Bay does not want people to know. Remember that she hid the maps that described the native title area. The Labor Party obviously has a plot to prevent people ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, I put on the public record last year that the Chief Minister lied on 3 occasions. You did not object to that.
Mr SPEAKER: I asked you to withdraw that remark.
Mr BAILEY: I will withdraw it, although I notice that you enforce some rules and not others.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Wanguri to withdraw that last remark.
Mr BAILEY: I withdraw the remark.
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the right of Territory artists to depict landscapes. I am talking about a landscape like this - a Territory landscape which all
Page 1926
Territorians, especially those in the north, enjoy. It was painted by a well-known Territory artist. Will this be subject to copyright?
Mr Ah Kit: I doubt it.
Mr MANZIE: You may doubt it, but there is legal action pending which may make that the case.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! If the minister is not talking about a legal opinion, I do not know what he is doing. He is specifically saying that this will be legally outlawed. If that is not a legal opinion that he is trying to offer, what is it?
Mr MANZIE: Mr Speaker, this is a native title issue - the same as pastoral leases and mining leases - with the possibility of compensation having to be paid to people under native title rules. We are talking about the possibility of having to pay compensation for the painting of Territory scenery if the land concerned is under native title. Members opposite should be concerned about that. They are not concerned. They hide their heads in the sand or they deny it.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe the minister is referring to a specific case. He is speaking in general terms. There is no point of order.
Mr MANZIE: I will close by saying that I am writing to the federal Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Alston, to ensure that the implications of the Native Title Act with regard to art and practising artists is brought to the attention of those concerned in drafting amendments to the native title legislation. I would expect support from the ALP for the benefit of the Territory community.
Page 1927
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016