Mr MITCHELL - 1995-10-12
It has been alleged by the Northern Land Council that the government has acted outside its own legislative framework in acquiring land at East Arm for the construction of Darwin's new port. Can the Chief Minister clarify the process of acquisition in this instance?
Page 861
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thought this issue had been dealt with yesterday in Question Time. I turned on the television last night and there it was again - in that instance, on the 7.30 Report. Given that the Native Title Tribunal had already clarified the matter, I would not have thought there was any need to put it on the public record. However, this is a very important issue that needs to be fully clarified and explained.
What was claimed by the Director of the Northern Land Council at 7.45 am on the 8 DDD news on 12 October, leaving out the preamble, was: `We are saying that they've' - and that is a reference to the Northern Territory government - `been found to be wrong on both counts by the Native Title Tribunal by accepting the claim'. That is totally misleading. I will quote a clarification issued by the Registrar of the Native Title Tribunal 2 days ago. This story has continued to run despite the fact that this clarification was issued 2 days ago. This seems to have been ignored totally by everyone:
Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Merranie Strauss, said today her decision to accept 2 applications by the Larrakia
people for the land and seas at East Arm did not determine whether the compulsory acquisition breached
the Lands Acquisition Act or the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. `The applicants have shown an arguable case
that native title could exist despite the compulsory acquisition', Ms Strauss said.
Mr Speaker, I table that paper.
Let us be clear about this. The government has conformed absolutely with the requirements of the Native Title Act. Indeed, it is an act which dictates the processes that the government has followed. This is an acquisition of a possible interest, yet to be proved, in what is otherwise vacant Crown land. It is not, as some seem to believe, a compulsory acquisition of native title land, and the government would argue that native title has been extinguished through prior use. After all, East Arm has been an army base and a leprosarium, and has long been surrounded by a fence with locked gates. However, the law requires that this procedure be followed, including the notification of any persons etc who may have a native title interest in the land. Far from going against the law, we are following the procedures that the law requires.
I appeal to people who are commenting on this issue at least to get their facts right. Far from going against the law, we are following the procedures that the law requires. If people are unsure about how the process works - and it is a complicated process - they should at least take the time to find out.
Page 862
Page 861
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thought this issue had been dealt with yesterday in Question Time. I turned on the television last night and there it was again - in that instance, on the 7.30 Report. Given that the Native Title Tribunal had already clarified the matter, I would not have thought there was any need to put it on the public record. However, this is a very important issue that needs to be fully clarified and explained.
What was claimed by the Director of the Northern Land Council at 7.45 am on the 8 DDD news on 12 October, leaving out the preamble, was: `We are saying that they've' - and that is a reference to the Northern Territory government - `been found to be wrong on both counts by the Native Title Tribunal by accepting the claim'. That is totally misleading. I will quote a clarification issued by the Registrar of the Native Title Tribunal 2 days ago. This story has continued to run despite the fact that this clarification was issued 2 days ago. This seems to have been ignored totally by everyone:
Tribunal Deputy Registrar, Merranie Strauss, said today her decision to accept 2 applications by the Larrakia
people for the land and seas at East Arm did not determine whether the compulsory acquisition breached
the Lands Acquisition Act or the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. `The applicants have shown an arguable case
that native title could exist despite the compulsory acquisition', Ms Strauss said.
Mr Speaker, I table that paper.
Let us be clear about this. The government has conformed absolutely with the requirements of the Native Title Act. Indeed, it is an act which dictates the processes that the government has followed. This is an acquisition of a possible interest, yet to be proved, in what is otherwise vacant Crown land. It is not, as some seem to believe, a compulsory acquisition of native title land, and the government would argue that native title has been extinguished through prior use. After all, East Arm has been an army base and a leprosarium, and has long been surrounded by a fence with locked gates. However, the law requires that this procedure be followed, including the notification of any persons etc who may have a native title interest in the land. Far from going against the law, we are following the procedures that the law requires.
I appeal to people who are commenting on this issue at least to get their facts right. Far from going against the law, we are following the procedures that the law requires. If people are unsure about how the process works - and it is a complicated process - they should at least take the time to find out.
Page 862
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016