Ms HOARE (9:34 AM) —I was hoping to continue my contribution, which I started before question time, to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 yesterday afternoon. Instead we were forced to debate the preamble legislation, the bill which gave our nation a preamble to the Constitution for the next 100 years and which was rammed through this chamber between question time and the adjournment debate yesterday. But, as I said yesterday, I am pleased to finally have the opportunity to speak against this amendment bill. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, said in his second reading speech that the bill corrects an error previously made when the Elliott stockyards and dip were included in schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It may well have been an error, but this piece of legislation sends a very wrong and very unnecessary message to the Australian electorate and, in particular, to our indigenous communities.

In essence, as detailed by our shadow minister, this bill allows the Commonwealth government to take back land which was granted to the Gurungu Land Trust in 1994. Right at this moment the traditional owners hold legal title to the Elliott stockyards land. The shadow minister in the debate yesterday outlined the history associated with this land, and there is no need for me to repeat that. The government claims that the land grant was a mistake, an error. However, the traditional landowners initially resisted all moves to take this land off them. There has been considerable negotiation since then between the affected parties, the major stakeholders, including the Gurungu people, the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association.

Possible remedies already exist for what many stakeholders see as an untenable and unsustainable situation. It is not necessary at all for the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and his government to compulsorily acquire this land. That is what this amendment bill seeks to do. What this Commonwealth government is doing for the first time since land rights were granted in the Northern Territory is to take them back. It is an appalling situation and it sickens me to the stomach, as it does my colleagues.

In 1967, in a revolt against Aboriginal stockmen's appalling wages and conditions, Aboriginal workers challenged the giant British pastoral company Vestey's and walked off Vestey's Wave Hill station. This defiant action was, in effect, the beginning of their struggle for the return of tribal lands, nearly 180 years since indigenous Australians were forced from their traditional lands with the white invasion of 1788.

The Labor Party, in our proud tradition of supporting downtrodden and exploited workers, supported the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. After assuming the prime ministership in 1972, Gough Whitlam pursued justice for our indigenous people, and in 1975 Gough Whitlam formally handed over the land at Wattie Creek to the Gurindji people. One of the most memorable pieces of media footage, as I think will be agreed by all members of this House, was broadcast on that August day when Gough Whitlam picked up the dirt of the land of the Gurindji people and in a symbolic gesture poured it into the hands of Vincent Lingiari.

This initial restoration of land to Aboriginal people was the impetus for what we now know as reconciliation. Gough Whitlam's government was sacked in that travesty of 1975 before the land rights legislation he foreshadowed could be passed through the parliament. Fortunately, though, for the cause of reconciliation, Malcolm Fraser and his Aboriginal affairs minister, Ian Viner, introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Minister Viner at that time articulated his belief, his idealism and his commitment to Aboriginal land rights during his speech to the parliament in June 1976 introducing the land rights bill. Minister Viner said:

This bill will give traditional Aborigines inalienable freehold title to land on reserves in the Northern Territory and provide the machinery for them to obtain title to traditional land outside reserves. The Coalition parties' policy on aboriginal affairs clearly acknowledges that affinity with the land is fundamental to aborigines' sense of identity—

Between the implementation of the land rights act and until the early 1990s we witnessed many momentous steps to further advance the reconciliation process. These events include the introduction of the racial discrimination legislation, the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and many Aboriginal land councils across the nation, and also the introduction of the Native Title Act in 1993 which had its foundations born out of the historic High Court Mabo decision on native title.

The Native Title Act introduced by the Keating government set our nation right on track to enable us to rectify the dispossession of all Aboriginal people from their lands all those years ago. Yet another example of this government choosing to weaken, attack and destroy the process of consultation and informed consent, rather than committing to constructive courses and strengthening policy, was the successful passage of the 1997 Native Title Amendment Bill.

It really is a tragedy as we head into the new millennium and progress further towards reconciliation that we now have a coalition government which is trying to take back the land. This bill is not the only debate occurring about land rights in this country. The inclusion of the Elliott stockyards and dip in the initial Gurungu land claim was subject to a review commissioned by this government into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

The Reeves review was completed in 1998 and, since 10 December last year, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into the recommendations which came from that review. Ian Viner and Malcolm Fraser have recently damned the recommendations of the Reeves report and have said that Reeves is `turning Aboriginal land rights on its head'. I am pleased to be a member of that committee. As the chair of the committee indicated yesterday, we will be presenting our report to the parliament during this spring session.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, as well as being subject to the Reeves report and to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Affairs inquiry, has also been subject to an inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee which is due to report to parliament today. It is beyond all comprehension why this government has pursued the passage of this bill before either of these committees report to the parliament. Why bother commissioning these inquiries? It must be a farce, the government mouthing platitudes. The member for Indi before me spoke about scarce resources. Well, why not wait for these reports to be presented to the parliament? If the parliament does not wait, it ensures the waste of the resources which have been allocated to conduct the inquiries.

I came into this parliament last year with a passion to further assist the ideals of reconciliation and to redress the appalling inequality and imbalances which still exist in our communities between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. So I was most honoured and quite humbled to be elected to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. However, I immediately realised that I did not know half of the culture, the traditions, the law, the sense of community, the sincerity, the friendliness, the pride and the passion of the Aboriginal communities and the integral role that the land plays in Aboriginal culture and spirituality.

I was, and still am, largely on a steep, enjoyable and humbling learning curve, but I am well guided and ably educated by my colleagues, our shadow minister the member for Banks and the member for the Northern Territory. Daryl Melham and Warren Snowdon have lived with these issues and have worked with them and brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to our inquiry.

The reason I am speaking about this current inquiry is to highlight the passion and also the fear that is out there in remote communities over their land rights. I travelled to Central Australia with the rest of the committee and to many remote communities. The most memorable for me was visiting Daguragu and Kalkarindji to speak with and listen to the traditional owners.

Our meeting at Kalkarindji was with traditional owners from various communities, many of whom had travelled hundreds of miles to be there. One of the speakers at that meeting was Jeannie Jungarri Herbert from Lajamanu. She and other members of her community travelled from the edge of the Tanami Desert. She said to our committee:

We do not want our rights taken away. You people do not understand the Dreamings and all that but it is really important to us. We care from the heart.

Aboriginal people do not change the laws, but we in parliament do, as governments change from one political persuasion to another. This was reiterated and re-emphasised time and time again, meeting after meeting, discussion after discussion. At Kalkarindji, Jampijinpa of the Warlpiri people said to us:

Aboriginal people do not change the law. We would never ever change the law until the world ends. Every Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory, whatever tribe they are, we do not change the law. Interpretation is made by lingo, but law and order, Dreaming—the things we do—are the same in the Territory or in Australia.

He also said:

I have been a spokesman since the land rights began 30 years ago. I walked up from the Wave Hill station. I feel unhappy about the way the Government is trying to change our lives. Why is the Government trying to take our rights away? We fought for our rights and now the Government is trying to take our rights for the second time.

Following the meeting at Kalkarindji, Jeannie and other women took me—the only female member of that committee at that meeting—to Daguragu, to the site where, 24 years earlier, Gough Whitlam had handed over that dirt and poured it into Vincent Lingiari's hands. It was one of the most moving and emotional days of my life. While we were at Daguragu, the women—the traditional owners of the various lands around Kalkarindji and Daguragu—performed a women's ceremony for me which portrayed the land and their identity with the land, their affinity with the land and the effect that the land plays on their lives, their spirituality and their whole being. These beads, which Jeannie gave to me, were given as a gift from one group of women to another. They symbolise the trust which Aboriginal women have placed in me while we deliberate on their futures in this white parliament.

In every community we visited, we heard the same strong, passionate, emotional plea: `Do not take our land away!' What we are asking in this parliament is to use the process of consultation and informed consent. If we are going to change the laws affecting Aboriginal people, then they must have a say. To finish, I reiterate that everywhere we went they said, `Do not take our land away!'