Mr BELL - 1997-02-27
I draw his attention to the Deputy Chief Minister's refusal to negotiate native title claims, as he announced in his last answer. I also draw his attention to the fact that his legal advisers and other officers of the Northern Territory government, with officials from the Phillips gas company, yesterday afternoon attended the Atrium Hotel to negotiate with the Darwin native title claimants regarding a proposed Wickham Point gas plant. Will he admit that this decision to negotiate stands in stark contrast with the rhetoric of the Chief Minister and his deputy, an example of which we have just heard?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, officers of the Attorney-General's Department have commenced discussions with regard to that area. They are required to do this under the Native Title Act when an area is being acquired or in any other form of negotiation on acquisition. That is a necessary process under the Native Title Act. What we are trying to do is reach a point of discussion, which we have to do even if the government wants to acquire land. That is what is happening in that instance.
The overriding problem that the Attorney-General's Department has is that it is required in all instances to prove that it is negotiating in good faith. Any claim by the claimant that it is not negotiating in good faith starts the whole process again. That is one of the issues that this government objects to with regard to the native title process.
We have been asked what we can do. I will turn that question back and say, first ask the native title claimants what they can do, because the first step required of them is that they define native title. Officers of the Attorney- General's Department spend months and years on claims simply to reach a point where the nature of the native title claim is defined. Members opposite talk in this House about negotiation. That is happening all the time, in good faith, by officers of the department and they are getting nowhere. The second problem, as I have outlined previously in this House, is to determine who the claimants are. That in itself is an incredibly lengthy process. Those are the 2 overriding issues that have to be resolved before the Attorney-General's Department can begin to go anywhere. I emphasise at all times that our officers are negotiating in good faith.
Page 1979
When members of the opposition talk about sitting down, as the member for Arnhem says, and talking about these matters, they should look at some of the case histories from Canada, where many of the native title cases that were negotiated in the past have now been overruled by High Court decisions. Issues such as going on to the land to fish and hunt have now been challenged by Canadian High Court decisions, such as the Van der Peet decision, saying that is not a native title right. Some of the things that we are assuming in Australia as native title rights have been proven, over the past 10 years in Canada, not to exist. In one case in Canada, where a particular tribe had claimed rights over the sea and a host of issues - not unlike the Croker Island claim - the Canadian High Court has ruled that the only native title right of that tribe was to gather a form of algae in which historically it had always traded. That was the only native title right, at the end of the day, that the court gave.
Mr Stone: But they held things up for 10 years.
Mr BURKE: Yes. When you talk about negotiation, the first thing this government asks for is definition of what the native title claim is. I think that is a genuine explanation of why this government refuses to become involved with the ambit claims that are being lodged, and also refuses to accept the member for Arnhem's blase comment that all we need to do is sit down and negotiate these things. They have to be defined in the first instance.
Page 1980
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, officers of the Attorney-General's Department have commenced discussions with regard to that area. They are required to do this under the Native Title Act when an area is being acquired or in any other form of negotiation on acquisition. That is a necessary process under the Native Title Act. What we are trying to do is reach a point of discussion, which we have to do even if the government wants to acquire land. That is what is happening in that instance.
The overriding problem that the Attorney-General's Department has is that it is required in all instances to prove that it is negotiating in good faith. Any claim by the claimant that it is not negotiating in good faith starts the whole process again. That is one of the issues that this government objects to with regard to the native title process.
We have been asked what we can do. I will turn that question back and say, first ask the native title claimants what they can do, because the first step required of them is that they define native title. Officers of the Attorney- General's Department spend months and years on claims simply to reach a point where the nature of the native title claim is defined. Members opposite talk in this House about negotiation. That is happening all the time, in good faith, by officers of the department and they are getting nowhere. The second problem, as I have outlined previously in this House, is to determine who the claimants are. That in itself is an incredibly lengthy process. Those are the 2 overriding issues that have to be resolved before the Attorney-General's Department can begin to go anywhere. I emphasise at all times that our officers are negotiating in good faith.
Page 1979
When members of the opposition talk about sitting down, as the member for Arnhem says, and talking about these matters, they should look at some of the case histories from Canada, where many of the native title cases that were negotiated in the past have now been overruled by High Court decisions. Issues such as going on to the land to fish and hunt have now been challenged by Canadian High Court decisions, such as the Van der Peet decision, saying that is not a native title right. Some of the things that we are assuming in Australia as native title rights have been proven, over the past 10 years in Canada, not to exist. In one case in Canada, where a particular tribe had claimed rights over the sea and a host of issues - not unlike the Croker Island claim - the Canadian High Court has ruled that the only native title right of that tribe was to gather a form of algae in which historically it had always traded. That was the only native title right, at the end of the day, that the court gave.
Mr Stone: But they held things up for 10 years.
Mr BURKE: Yes. When you talk about negotiation, the first thing this government asks for is definition of what the native title claim is. I think that is a genuine explanation of why this government refuses to become involved with the ambit claims that are being lodged, and also refuses to accept the member for Arnhem's blase comment that all we need to do is sit down and negotiate these things. They have to be defined in the first instance.
Page 1980
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016