Mr SNOWDON (10:25 AM) —I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate this morning for a number of reasons. Perhaps the first thing I should do is declare an interest. In 1984 I was an employee of the Central Land Council and my job included at that time the rewriting and editing of the history section of the Warumungu claim book. I note the comments that have been made by Justice Maurice in his final report. We need to understand that this claim has taken almost 20 years. That says a lot about the way in which Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory have had to be patient in dealing with issues to do with their rights.

I went recently to the handover of Elsey Station which again was as a result of action, in this case by the Northern Land Council, to purchase Elsey Station and then, under the land rights act, to transfer it to a native freehold title after a land claim process. Significantly, of course, one of the comments which was made at that time was that, whilst there was a celebration, there was a great sadness that many of the people who had been instrumental in working on that claim had passed away. So it is with the Warumungu land claim and I am sure the Frewena land claim. I know this is the case for the Warumungu land claim because some of their senior elders, one in particular, died over the last 12 months.

We need to understand this experience of going through a land claim process. The Warumungu land claim was a difficult land claim for Aboriginal witnesses. There was intensive cross-examination, very hostile cross-examination, by those opposed to the claim. Yet these people had to lay out in front of a judge their innermost being in terms of their rights and their relationships to land. Significantly, Justice Maurice found in their favour. But significantly also, as my friend and colleague the member for Banks has pointed out, he made significant comment about the trials and tribulations of their history, their history of contact with non-Aboriginal Australians—and let me say it is not a pretty one. They had experienced and, indeed, many would argue have continued to experience, a great deal of hostility over many years from those people who originally settled Northern Australia. And they were the subjects of government fiat—they had their lands appropriated by government fiat without any consultation, without any negotiation; they had their reserve relocated because the mining industry was interested in developing the area that they were originally on.

I feel very deeply about these subjects, and I say, `I declare an interest.' I declare an interest as I was an employee of the Central Land Council. I declare an interest as the member for the Northern Territory, that I was first elected in 1987. Land rights has been a very central part of my life for 20 years—and I make no apology for it. I have seen the debates which have raged in the Northern Territory and in the broader community about the issue of land rights, where Aboriginal Territorians and Aboriginal Australians generally have been pilloried by conservative political opponents, by governments, by ministers, by chief ministers in the case of the Northern Territory, where they have sought to divide the Northern Territory community generally on the issue of race over the question of land rights. I remember these occasions vividly.

I know that in every election I have fought since 1987 my relationship with Aboriginal people has been the subject of attack by the Northern Territory CLP and by my Liberal Party opponents here in Canberra. Well, I tell them: understand me, I make no apology, and I will continue to stand up for something which I think is right. And let me make it very clear to the government: as a result of the article in this morning's Australian, you be put on notice, you understand that if you seek to amend the land rights act in a way which is opposed by those people in the Northern Territory who are the owners of Aboriginal land—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) —Member for the Northern Territory, as the Speaker in the main chamber has said, you do not use `you'. If you could address your comments through the chair, thank you.

Mr SNOWDON —I am talking about the Commonwealth government. I am saying to the Commonwealth government, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker: if you, the Commonwealth government, seek to amend the act in a way which is opposed by traditional owners in the Northern Territory, it will be opposed by the Labor Party. And I say to them: look at the very first recommendation of this report, Unlocking the future. It is the central and core recommendation; indeed, the recommendation which qualifies every other recommendation in this document. The first recommendation of this report, which was so ably chaired by my colleague opposite, reads:

I say to the government: you are on notice—unless you meet that objective, unless we can see very transparently that in any attempt to amend the land rights act you have first had the informed consent of these people, then we will oppose it. And I expect that my colleagues on the government side of the House who are part of this committee's report will take the same position. After all, this committee's report was unanimous.

The government has a number of proposals which I understand to be the subject of a cabinet submission. These proposals deal with, among other things, amendment of the objects of the act. There has been no attempt thus far to negotiate with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory or to inform them about these issues. There has been no attempt to sit down with the traditional owners in the Northern Territory and inform them. Yesterday and today, in Tennant Creek, there is a meeting of the Central Land Council, with all the representatives of the Central Land Council coming together—some 80-odd people from all over the Central Land Council area, which is roughly half the Northern Territory. No-one from this government has gone to the Central Land Council with a set of proposals and said to them, `We would like to discuss these with your membership.' These proposals have, by the way, been put to ATSIC but they have not been discussed with the people of the Northern Territory. As well as the proposal to amend the objects, there is a proposal to break up the major land councils, in a way. What they say is in some part in accordance with the recognition of this report. They propose to form an assessment process for the formation of new land councils. As well, there is to be a plebiscite, conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, requiring a majority of 55 per cent of the formal vote. Hello, what have we got here? This is the informed consent of an absolute majority. It is not the informed consent of traditional owners. I take the House back to the report of the House of Representatives standing committee, recommendation 7 of which says:

The current proposal being put forward by this government—being discussed by the cabinet, we understand—to have informed consent of those traditional owners says 55 per cent. How does 55 per cent equate to a substantial majority under anyone's definition? It is a very cute trick by the government in this issue.

There is also a proposal to deal with the issue of sacred sites. I will not go into my comments on that issue at the moment because there are other matters I want to address. Needless to say, the proposal is to exclude, in large part, the land councils from their current roles under section 69 of the land rights act, which gives them a role in relation to sacred sites. The government needs to understand that this will be a particularly contentious issue amongst Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. I would say to the government that again it should go back to principle No. 1, informed consent, before seeking to impose these laws upon the Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory in relation to amending the land rights act. The government would be well served to go back and look at the two reports produced by royal commissioner Justice Woodward and the subsequent review reports done by Justice Toohey in relation to the land rights act, to see exactly what was said about these particular issues.

There is another proposal being put forward by the government about the application of Northern Territory laws. They are proposing to amend the act to provide that certain Northern Territory laws, such as those related to environmental protection and conservation, public health and safety, the supply of essential services and maintenance of law and order or the administration of justice shall apply to Aboriginal land, and there are others. This committee looked at this issue and could find no evidence that there was any difficulty with the application of Northern Territory laws in relation to Aboriginal land. The committee recommended that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs consider whether the powers need to be extended, but then go through a process of consultation, discussion and negotiation. In fact, under core principles, under the committee's recommendations in that particular chapter on page 136, paragraph 8.40, it says:

This does not propose that at all. There is also a proposition for compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. There is no case for the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Again, this issue was looked at seriously by the House of Representatives committee and they unanimously came down with the view that there was no case for this proposal, yet it is a proposal which is being picked up by the minister and, presumably, by the cabinet. They are putting this proposal forward, knowing full well that there has been a process, the Reeves report, and then the House of Representatives standing committee came down with a unanimous report rejecting this proposal.

I am not a cynic, but I have serious concerns about what is behind these ideas. There are proposals in the government's submission to deal with the Aboriginal benefits trust account, to deal with mining provisions of the act. I am sure there has been no attempt to have any process of discussion or negotiation with those people who are affected by these issues. There are a range of other issues which the proposals by the government address, and the bottom line is that unless these proposals have the support of Aboriginal people, unless they have their informed consent, they will be opposed by the Labor Party.

We have heard a great deal recently from the Prime Minister about the need for reconciliation. I say to the Prime Minister and this parliament that, if they believe reconciliation is going to be achieved by seeking to divide the community against Aboriginal Australians or if it is going to be poll driven, they are wrong. I have been the subject of a great deal of vilification because of my relationship with Aboriginal Territorians over many years. I can smell a rat. I have a real suspicion about this issue. My real suspicion is that this is another attempt by the Commonwealth government. Shane Stone, previously the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, is now President of the Australian Liberal Party. This is a real attempt by the government to ensure that there is a divisive political debate over the issue of land rights in the Northern Territory and in Australia generally. They will try to capitalise politically on this issue over time as we lead up to the next federal election. That is their intent, I have no doubt. But I put them on notice. If they believe we are going to be cowered by these sorts of attempts to intimidate the Australian community and to vilify Aboriginal Australians, they are sadly mistaken. If the Prime Minister were half a leader, he would do what this committee has done. He would not seek to amend this act, which has been so important to Aboriginal Territorians, without their informed consent as a bottom line.

But I fear that will not be the case. My fear is that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, whether it is a cynical political exercise that I alluded to a moment ago or otherwise—I think there is an intent here, which has been articulated by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in his submission to the cabinet—will attempt to override and bully Aboriginal Territorians to accede to the government's wishes.

There will be a great deal of discussion about these issues in the weeks to come. Among these issues there will be attempts to attack in a pejorative way the way in which the Northern Territory land councils work. Let me say that these organisations are not beyond reproach; these organisations are not beyond improvement; these organisations must be accountable. But again, these are questions which were examined in detail by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. These are questions on which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs made specific comment. It is worth while noting—and the chairman of the committee is going to be on his feet in a moment—that we have not had, as I understand it, a response from the government on the recommendations of this committee's report.

Mr Lieberman —We have.

Mr SNOWDON —We have. Perhaps my friend and colleague the chairman of the committee will inform us of that when he gets on his feet. But I can say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the context of the way in which the government are dealing with Aboriginal issues and indigenous issues generally, they must be put on notice. The way you are dealing with these issues is not good enough. Yesterday we had the sorry sight of this parliament gagging the Leader of the Opposition for seeking to take up with the Prime Minister the issue of reconciliation and his lack of leadership on the issue. We are seeing another example of the lack of leadership by this government over these attempts that we will see, no doubt, in the form of draft legislation very shortly to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. What this is about is eroding rights. What this is about is taking away the rights of indigenous Australians. I can say to this House and to the members opposite that they will have a fight on their hands. I do not believe any proposals that they put in accordance with this will get through the parliament. (Time expired)