Mr SETTER - 1997-02-19
Last year, the then Leader of the Opposition, Brian Ede, was unequivocal in his support for the proposition that a pastoral lease extinguishes native title. Mr Ede is on the record in this Chamber, stating that a pastoral lease extinguishes native title, and he quoted the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, in support of that proposition. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition in the Territory refused to support the proposition that a pastoral lease extinguishes native title. Given that the Territory is largely made up of pastoral lease land and is most vulnerable to native title claims - that is, over and above the 50% that has been claimed already under the Land Rights Act - can the Chief Minister advise ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the question.
Mr SETTER: ... this uncertainty in the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was asked despite the deliberate attempts, particularly by the member for Wanguri, in interjecting to prevent Territorians, who are listening to the broadcast, from hearing it. The ALP in the Territory does not like the answer. It can run, but it cannot hide on this issue. This issue is of vital importance to Territorians. Members opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Members opposite continue to interject and try to hide behind a High Court decision. At least, to his credit, the former Leader of the Opposition did no such thing. At least, Brian Ede stood shoulder-to-shoulder in this Chamber with the Northern Territory government in subscribing to the view that a pastoral lease extinguishes native title. A person might be forgiven for believing that the problem is perhaps that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand native title and that she has not taken the time to do her homework. After all, it was the Leader of the Opposition who was reported in today's newspaper - or was it on ABC radio this morning? - as saying that she could have given a more considered response to yesterday's motion had she been given a little more notice of it. The question I have to ask, and the question that Territorians will be asking, is what she was doing over the Christmas period while the rest of us were working.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: What have you been doing since you have been the Leader of the Opposition?
Page 1918
The proof that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand native title and how it works was contained in her own words yesterday in debate. She had this to say:
Why does he implicitly presume that native title will be established on each and every pastoral lease in the
Northern Territory? Why does he take this extremist view? Why doesn't he point out that native title
claimants have to establish their claim?
Does she still subscribe to that view? Doesn't she understand that it is a reverse onus of proof? She, who would aspire to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, does not understand how the act works if she believes there is an onus of proof on the Aboriginal claimants. There is not. They lodge the claim and, once it is accepted by the tribunal, the act provides that you are into a cycle of negotiation. It is a reverse onus.
Mr Bell: No.
Mr STONE: Are you advising her? Now we understand! Now we know where it is coming from. The eternal law student is the adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. I tell the Leader of the Opposition now that I take my advice from people who have spent every waking moment poring over this legislation. This is clearly one of the difficulties. We have a Leader of the Opposition who is, quite frankly, a dill. She does not understand how the legislation works.
The whole issue of uncertainty is important. I will remind members what was stated at the eco-politics conference that was held in Darwin. An Aboriginal spokesman said that `uncertainty is good'. In other words, you can ratchet up the negotiations if you can keep the uncertainty running. Yesterday, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries gave the example of Top Bananas. Top Bananas has developed its 70 ha site. It has spent $3m, but it is unable to expand its operations. In other words, jobs for Territorians are being lost because of the complications of native title. Top Bananas cannot expand on to neighbouring land.
Earlier this year, we had the example of the Blackmore River and the prawn farm there. Territorians will remember. What was the demand there? Was it about being able to enter land to hunt, gather and observe ceremonies? No. It was about $250 000, and they would go away. Not only did they want the $250 000 cash, but they wanted an identical block of land in the Territory and they did not want to pay for it. And there is more. They wanted the proponent to set it up, to develop it for them, to train their people and, in the event that the prawn farm did not go ahead, they wanted to have the first right of refusal to acquire it. That is the type of blackmail and double-dealing that people are trying to deal with. Yesterday, it was so telling that most members opposite sat there silently. They had nothing to say on one of the most important issues ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem will desist from constant interjections - and also the member for Stuart.
Page 1919
Mr STONE: Yesterday, only 2 members opposite had anything to say on this important topic. They all went and hid. They ran away like frightened rabbits because they do not want to stand up and tell Territorians what their real agenda is all about. If they think that they are fooling Territorians by using these grand claims that they oppose the ambit claim but defend the Larrakia right to make the application, they are wrong. The Deputy Chief Minister asked what part of the claim members opposite do not like. We will never have an answer from these people because they will hide and obfuscate on this issue as long and as hard as they can. They will not get away with it. The matter is so serious that the issues must be debated in full in this Chamber.
Page 1921
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing the question.
Mr SETTER: ... this uncertainty in the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was asked despite the deliberate attempts, particularly by the member for Wanguri, in interjecting to prevent Territorians, who are listening to the broadcast, from hearing it. The ALP in the Territory does not like the answer. It can run, but it cannot hide on this issue. This issue is of vital importance to Territorians. Members opposite ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: Members opposite continue to interject and try to hide behind a High Court decision. At least, to his credit, the former Leader of the Opposition did no such thing. At least, Brian Ede stood shoulder-to-shoulder in this Chamber with the Northern Territory government in subscribing to the view that a pastoral lease extinguishes native title. A person might be forgiven for believing that the problem is perhaps that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand native title and that she has not taken the time to do her homework. After all, it was the Leader of the Opposition who was reported in today's newspaper - or was it on ABC radio this morning? - as saying that she could have given a more considered response to yesterday's motion had she been given a little more notice of it. The question I have to ask, and the question that Territorians will be asking, is what she was doing over the Christmas period while the rest of us were working.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr STONE: What have you been doing since you have been the Leader of the Opposition?
Page 1918
The proof that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand native title and how it works was contained in her own words yesterday in debate. She had this to say:
Why does he implicitly presume that native title will be established on each and every pastoral lease in the
Northern Territory? Why does he take this extremist view? Why doesn't he point out that native title
claimants have to establish their claim?
Does she still subscribe to that view? Doesn't she understand that it is a reverse onus of proof? She, who would aspire to be Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, does not understand how the act works if she believes there is an onus of proof on the Aboriginal claimants. There is not. They lodge the claim and, once it is accepted by the tribunal, the act provides that you are into a cycle of negotiation. It is a reverse onus.
Mr Bell: No.
Mr STONE: Are you advising her? Now we understand! Now we know where it is coming from. The eternal law student is the adviser to the Leader of the Opposition. I tell the Leader of the Opposition now that I take my advice from people who have spent every waking moment poring over this legislation. This is clearly one of the difficulties. We have a Leader of the Opposition who is, quite frankly, a dill. She does not understand how the legislation works.
The whole issue of uncertainty is important. I will remind members what was stated at the eco-politics conference that was held in Darwin. An Aboriginal spokesman said that `uncertainty is good'. In other words, you can ratchet up the negotiations if you can keep the uncertainty running. Yesterday, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries gave the example of Top Bananas. Top Bananas has developed its 70 ha site. It has spent $3m, but it is unable to expand its operations. In other words, jobs for Territorians are being lost because of the complications of native title. Top Bananas cannot expand on to neighbouring land.
Earlier this year, we had the example of the Blackmore River and the prawn farm there. Territorians will remember. What was the demand there? Was it about being able to enter land to hunt, gather and observe ceremonies? No. It was about $250 000, and they would go away. Not only did they want the $250 000 cash, but they wanted an identical block of land in the Territory and they did not want to pay for it. And there is more. They wanted the proponent to set it up, to develop it for them, to train their people and, in the event that the prawn farm did not go ahead, they wanted to have the first right of refusal to acquire it. That is the type of blackmail and double-dealing that people are trying to deal with. Yesterday, it was so telling that most members opposite sat there silently. They had nothing to say on one of the most important issues ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem will desist from constant interjections - and also the member for Stuart.
Page 1919
Mr STONE: Yesterday, only 2 members opposite had anything to say on this important topic. They all went and hid. They ran away like frightened rabbits because they do not want to stand up and tell Territorians what their real agenda is all about. If they think that they are fooling Territorians by using these grand claims that they oppose the ambit claim but defend the Larrakia right to make the application, they are wrong. The Deputy Chief Minister asked what part of the claim members opposite do not like. We will never have an answer from these people because they will hide and obfuscate on this issue as long and as hard as they can. They will not get away with it. The matter is so serious that the issues must be debated in full in this Chamber.
Page 1921
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016