Mr LIEBERMAN (1:43 PM) —I will make a somewhat restrained response because of the unusual position in which I find myself, being Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. At this very moment I am in the process of deliberating with my committee colleagues, including the shadow minister, on our draft report, so I will try to ensure that I do not say anything in my speech today to infringe the good practices of the parliament in relation to committees considering reports.

If ever I have seen a case where politics gets in the way of resolving a problem this surely is one, and I think the facts speak for themselves. Let me briefly reiterate my understanding of the facts. This bill is designed to overcome a problem because of a conveyancing error. Land, a stockyard, was transferred by error. That transfer occurred in 1990 or thereabouts. It was called the Elliott stockyards. In other words, the stockyards were never intended to be included in the Aboriginal land but they were due to a conveyancing error by the parties who were acting for the parties involved in this matter.

Without wanting to get too political—but it is a matter of historical record—the then minister, Mr Tickner, from the Labor Party then in government, publicly announced and wrote letters saying that this error had to be rectified. The conveyancing error, wrongly including the land in the transfer, would have to be rectified. Paraphrasing some of the correspondence that I have been privy to having a summary of, he said that the will of the parliament would have to prevail if necessary.

Furthermore, the previous distinguished minister for Aboriginal affairs, the Hon. Clyde Holding, a good friend and very good minister in my view, one who was previously a member of the parliament and of the committee with me and a great help to me because of his extensive experience, went further. On behalf of the Labor government when he was minister, he legislated an amendment to the Northern Territory Aborigi nal Lands Act to exclude stock routes from being able to be considered by a land commissioner for inclusion in the inalienable fee simple title for Aboriginal people of crown land in the Northern Territory.

It was the former Labor government which ensured by passing laws that stock routes would not be able to be considered by the land commissioners—who are, of course, federal judges, as honourable members will know. It was the previous Labor government that laid out this law which is still the law of the land. Furthermore, it is beyond dispute—it is common ground—from everyone's point of view that the transfer of land was made in error. It was contrary to the law, it was never intended to be conveyed, and it was transferred in error.

Those are the bald facts as I understand them. That is why the current minister and the present government are correct in producing and introducing into parliament legislation to remedy those problems and to restore the position to that which the Labor government previously has provided as the law of the land in the Northern Territory. So let us get that straight.

As I said earlier somewhat cynically, politics gets in the way of a lot of things, and surely the debate we have heard so far is a classic illustration of that. Sadly, it is also a reflection of the concern that many of us feel on both sides of the House that effective reconciliation and effective, dramatic and dynamic remedies to the disadvantages of Aboriginal people are being hindered by politics getting in the way, by divisions being perpetuated to undermine the confidence of both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people about issues concerning the administration of Aboriginal land and surrounding land.

This is a classic illustration of what is wrong with the mind-set. That is why I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate and commend the minister, John Herron, for his initiative in ensuring that the Reeves report into the Northern Territory Land Rights Act—enacted some 26 years ago following the royal commission recommendations of Woodward—should not be implemented or considered by the parliament or by the cabi net, the Prime Minister or the minister, until and if the committee of this parliament—the one that I am privileged at the moment to chair—has been to the Northern Territory and asked the people of the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal people particularly, what they think about the Reeves recommendations. That should be noted and the minister should be commended for his approach in ensuring that the interests of Aboriginal people and their concerns are taken into account before government policy is finalised on the Reeves recommendations, or indeed any other recommendations.

As a practical bloke from the bush, my own view is that this whole impasse could be resolved if this legislation were passed because it does what Mr Tickner, the former Labor minister, said had to happen following the error, which is common ground. It follows Clyde Holding's policy which this parliament accepted by an amendment by ensuring that stock routes are not included in Aboriginal freehold land in the Northern Territory. It does all that and it ensures that if there are any rights to compensation those rights are protected. That is, if compensatable claims can be established because of this whole sorry background of error in the previous government's jurisdiction, it ensures that anyone who would suffer loss under the Australian Constitution has their rights preserved. So it puts that to rest and deals with all of that. It also opens a way for the resolution of other issues regarding the management of the environment under local government and environmental laws of the Northern Territory.

As I understand it from the summary of facts that I have read, the Northern Territory government has given a firm commitment that it will introduce and enact complementary legislation in the Northern Territory, providing the mechanism by which the health and environmental issues of Aboriginal people living in this area near the Elliott stockyards can be protected. That has been an undertaking and I believe it was confirmed to the Senate committee of inquiry into this legislation.

Therefore, as I said earlier, my own view is that the legislation should no longer be delayed. I believe that the proclamation of this legislation should be concurrent with the proclamation of the appropriate Northern Territory legislation. That is the safeguard, and what it would do is to clarify the law. At the moment a strange anomaly exists in the legislation that Mr Holding introduced into this parliament, excluding the stockyards. I am not criticising Clyde Holding—I have already paid my tribute to him—but the parliamentary draftsmen apparently forgot, in enacting Mr Holding's recommendation that was endorsed by the government, and supported by both sides of parliament, I presume, to say that, as stockyards can no longer be included in Northern Territory Aboriginal land under that act, therefore claims for stockyards cannot be made. So we have the peculiar anomaly where there are a number of claims still on the books in the Northern Territory that cannot be dealt with because the land commissioner, the Federal Court judge, having jurisdiction to hear land claims under that act, cannot hear them because the law says that stockyards cannot be claimed.

There are a number of currently unresolved claims for stock routes in the Northern Territory that cannot be dealt with because the judge has no jurisdiction. Why? Because this parliament, under the Labor government, said, `No, you can't have stock routes.' Therefore, we have this anomaly. John Herron is dealing with that and rectifying it.

What is the public benefit of that? Let me give one example. Millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent over the last 25 years on litigation in the Northern Territory over land claims. That means that money that could have been spent addressing the health and other needs of Aboriginal people has been spent on expensive lawyers and anthropologists in court claims. That is not a good use of scarce taxpayer resources, and it is to the detriment of the Aboriginal people whose health and wellbeing is our primary concern. All of us, on both sides of the House, have that common goal.

Here we have a number of unresolved legal matters in the Northern Territory which cost money, scarce resources, and they dissipate the money that is otherwise available to address health and other issues. This legislation has the effect of rectifying the unintended consequence, the anomaly, that arose from Clyde Holding's amendment in the Labor government some years ago.

That is another good reason, from a public policy point of view, why this legislation should not be delayed any further. It is only my personal view, but it would be appropriate for the minister, who no doubt will take account of the debate in this House of Representatives, to consider delaying the proclamation of the law until such time as the Northern Territory parliament enacts the law that it has promised to proclaim. That will address effectively the concerns of the shadow minister, Mr Melham, about the environmental issues.

That is the solution. That is what should happen. But no, politics once again intrudes and delays good public policy and delays the sensible decisions of a very good minister, John Herron. It does not protect or enhance the interests of Aboriginal citizens in the Northern Territory. It is just another blow to them.

If we all had time to go up to this area and talk to the Aboriginal people who actually live in this part of the Northern Territory, including the traditional owners, including the Aboriginal residents who are non-traditional owners but nevertheless part of the community, then I would venture a suggestion to you that they would say, `Hang on, what are you white fellas talking about in your parliament? We just want the thing rectified.'

I say that this legislation should go ahead. It should be enacted and the anomalies which developed during the previous Labor government, caused by the administration of the Labor government, by Mr Tickner and his administration, with the genesis coming from Mr Holding during his administration, should be addressed. John Herron should be commended for this and other very good initiatives on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Australia. I commend and encourage John Herron for his work and thank him for the effectiveness of his sound strategic decision making in the interests of Aboriginal people.