Dr LIM - 1997-02-18
Since the lodging of the native title claim, which covers large areas of Darwin and Palmerston and the immediate rural environment, a number of concerns have been raised and covered in the media. These include the apparent ambit nature of the claim and the claim covering existing public facilities and recreation areas. The claim also appears to focus on areas that afford opportunities for maximising compensation claims by the Larrakia. Would the minister explain exactly what public facilities are affected by the Larrakia claim, and whether he believes this to be an ambit claim?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I strongly believe this to be an ambit claim, and for a number of reasons. Because of the complexity of the native title legislation and the processes that have to be followed, the general public has great difficulty in understanding it. I think the member for Greatorex's question this morning will enable Territorians to obtain a better understanding, notwithstanding the chuckling from the member for Arnhem who obviously considers this to be a joke. He has rolled the Leader of the Opposition in relation to native title legislation and the Labor Party's policy is to support native title strongly. We have evidence in recent statements from the member for Arnhem, in statements from the preselected federal Labor candidate, Warren Snowdon, and in the subsequent weekend-long caucus meeting, that the ALP had to re-educate the member for Barkly in respect of her views on native title. After that meeting, she was forced to state that she supported native title. She is a supporter of native title ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1894
Mr REED: Territorians who are listening to this broadcast should know precisely what the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, supports. She supports native title claims over the following popular public areas: the Holmes Jungle Nature Park; the Leanyer Recreation Lake which was constructed at the expense of the taxpayer but is now sought by this Larrakia claim through the Northern Land Council; the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, including the beach and the Dripstone cliffs; the Rapid Creek Water Gardens which is known to many people in Darwin, particularly those in the northern suburbs; the Freshwater Creek Recreation Area south of McMillans Road; East Point Reserve; Vesteys Beach; Mindil Beach; Bicentennial Park and Lameroo Beach; and Marlow Lagoon Recreation Area. I dare say that, if you asked the member for Palmerston about the history of Marlow Lagoon, he would tell you that, some years ago, it was little more than a waterhole or a buffalo wallow. As a result of community effort, it is now a wonderful recreation used by the people of Palmerston in particular. The claim includes popular recreational fishing and crabbing places such as Buffalo Creek, Micket Creek, King Creek, Sadgroves Creek, Bleesers Creek and Reichhardt Creek, as well as the estuarine areas of East Arm, Elizabeth River, Middle Arm, Acock Reach, Daly's Creek and Berry Creek. Parts of the Marrara Sporting Complex are also included in the claim.
One has to ask - and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might care to answer this question for Territorians, given that she is a supporter of this native title claim by the Larrakia people and the NLC over the recreational areas in Darwin - why these areas are included if the claimants do not intend to impose some control over them in the future. If they do not intend to impose some control over them in the future, and I can think of no other reason why they would want to claim them ...
Mr Ah Kit: Have you sat down and talked with them?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: You try to conceal the facts from Territorians. You are happy to come out in support of native title ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Members opposite are happy to support native title, provided Territorians are not told what native title means. A native title claim has all of those very popular recreation areas under threat. Future public access to them should be a matter of great concern. If the claimants do not intend to impose some control over these areas in the future, perhaps they might like to explain that to Territorians in a firm and committed way. In addition, if no controls are to be imposed, what levels of compensation do the claimants have in mind?
Compensation is all about taxpayers' dollars. The Northern Land Council is trying to reach into the pockets of taxpayers. That comes closer to what these claims are all about. These are claims over strategic areas. They are designed to impose the greatest possible ambit claim and the greatest possible options to negotiate either a massive claim or to extract money from people in the future in relation to the controls that will be imposed over these areas.
Page 1895
Failure by the Northern Land Council to state clearly that it does not intend to impose controls, and does not want to put its hand into the taxpayers' pocket for compensation in the future, will only confirm in the minds of Territorians that this is not a land grab from a cultural point of view, but a land grab for taxpayers' dollars. It is designed to maximise the opportunity to obtain as many dollars from the taxpayer as possible. I urge the Northern Land Council to clarify its position, either on the level of compensation that it seeks or on the controls that it would impose over these public areas in the future.
Page 1896
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I strongly believe this to be an ambit claim, and for a number of reasons. Because of the complexity of the native title legislation and the processes that have to be followed, the general public has great difficulty in understanding it. I think the member for Greatorex's question this morning will enable Territorians to obtain a better understanding, notwithstanding the chuckling from the member for Arnhem who obviously considers this to be a joke. He has rolled the Leader of the Opposition in relation to native title legislation and the Labor Party's policy is to support native title strongly. We have evidence in recent statements from the member for Arnhem, in statements from the preselected federal Labor candidate, Warren Snowdon, and in the subsequent weekend-long caucus meeting, that the ALP had to re-educate the member for Barkly in respect of her views on native title. After that meeting, she was forced to state that she supported native title. She is a supporter of native title ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Page 1894
Mr REED: Territorians who are listening to this broadcast should know precisely what the member for Barkly, the Leader of the Opposition, supports. She supports native title claims over the following popular public areas: the Holmes Jungle Nature Park; the Leanyer Recreation Lake which was constructed at the expense of the taxpayer but is now sought by this Larrakia claim through the Northern Land Council; the Casuarina Coastal Reserve, including the beach and the Dripstone cliffs; the Rapid Creek Water Gardens which is known to many people in Darwin, particularly those in the northern suburbs; the Freshwater Creek Recreation Area south of McMillans Road; East Point Reserve; Vesteys Beach; Mindil Beach; Bicentennial Park and Lameroo Beach; and Marlow Lagoon Recreation Area. I dare say that, if you asked the member for Palmerston about the history of Marlow Lagoon, he would tell you that, some years ago, it was little more than a waterhole or a buffalo wallow. As a result of community effort, it is now a wonderful recreation used by the people of Palmerston in particular. The claim includes popular recreational fishing and crabbing places such as Buffalo Creek, Micket Creek, King Creek, Sadgroves Creek, Bleesers Creek and Reichhardt Creek, as well as the estuarine areas of East Arm, Elizabeth River, Middle Arm, Acock Reach, Daly's Creek and Berry Creek. Parts of the Marrara Sporting Complex are also included in the claim.
One has to ask - and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might care to answer this question for Territorians, given that she is a supporter of this native title claim by the Larrakia people and the NLC over the recreational areas in Darwin - why these areas are included if the claimants do not intend to impose some control over them in the future. If they do not intend to impose some control over them in the future, and I can think of no other reason why they would want to claim them ...
Mr Ah Kit: Have you sat down and talked with them?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: You try to conceal the facts from Territorians. You are happy to come out in support of native title ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Members opposite are happy to support native title, provided Territorians are not told what native title means. A native title claim has all of those very popular recreation areas under threat. Future public access to them should be a matter of great concern. If the claimants do not intend to impose some control over these areas in the future, perhaps they might like to explain that to Territorians in a firm and committed way. In addition, if no controls are to be imposed, what levels of compensation do the claimants have in mind?
Compensation is all about taxpayers' dollars. The Northern Land Council is trying to reach into the pockets of taxpayers. That comes closer to what these claims are all about. These are claims over strategic areas. They are designed to impose the greatest possible ambit claim and the greatest possible options to negotiate either a massive claim or to extract money from people in the future in relation to the controls that will be imposed over these areas.
Page 1895
Failure by the Northern Land Council to state clearly that it does not intend to impose controls, and does not want to put its hand into the taxpayers' pocket for compensation in the future, will only confirm in the minds of Territorians that this is not a land grab from a cultural point of view, but a land grab for taxpayers' dollars. It is designed to maximise the opportunity to obtain as many dollars from the taxpayer as possible. I urge the Northern Land Council to clarify its position, either on the level of compensation that it seeks or on the controls that it would impose over these public areas in the future.
Page 1896
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016