Mr WAKELIN (9:48 AM) —The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , introduced into the House on 30 March this year, amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to (1) invalidate that part of the land grant made to the Gurungu Land Trust in 1991 which related to about 3.8 hectares known as the Elliott stockyards and dip; (2) with regard to those stockyards, oust the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 and provide for compensation only where the acquisition is found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court; and (3) add three new circumstances in which a traditional land claim will have been taken to be finally disposed of.

The background is that the passage of the land rights act immediately transferred to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory some 258,000 square kilometres of government reserve land set aside for Aboriginal people. It also established a mechanism by which traditional lands could be transferred to land trusts which would hold the title to the land in the interest of the traditional `owners'. Claims are heard before an Aboriginal Land Commissioner who passes on his recommendations to the federal Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, whereupon the minister decides to accept or reject the recommendation.

In 1991, a small area known as the Elliott stockyards was mistakenly included in a grant of the Elliott locality during the rewriting of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) (Land Description) Regulations. In 1989, when the locality had been granted to the Gurungu Land Trust as part of a broad agreement between the then Labor government and the government of the Northern Territory over secure title to land for Aboriginal people in pastoral areas of the territory, the Elliott stockyards had been explicitly excluded. However, the area, consisting of public trucking yards and a public dip facility, was mistakenly included during the 1991 changes.

The recent Reeves report, which reviewed the act in question, highlighted this obvious mistake and suggested its immediate remedy. However, the Northern Land Council has protested that the remedying of this mistake would, unless certain environmental health and social problems are addressed, amount to the acquisition of property—the 3.8 hectares in question. Although some questions have been raised about the acquisition under this legislation, it is clear that this matter is simply an administrative error—an unintended consequence—that is now being remedied. The attempt to extort other compensation in these circumstances, outside of that which might be found by the Federal Court, does not reflect well on the advocates of that action.

Concerning new circumstances in which a land claim will finally be disposed of, this legislation addresses a number of deficiencies experienced with the present act so as to make the act and its operations fairer for all the people of the Northern Territory. The amendments will allow for the disposal of claims in the following circumstances: where the Land Commissioner is unable to determine that there are Aboriginal people who are traditional owners of the land, for at present, where the commissioner cannot make a determination, the claim remains on the books and only a positive finding that there are no such owners can resolve the matter finally; where claims were made after 5 June 1997, for when the 10-year sunset clause was introduced in 1987 it clearly prevented the commissioner from considering claims made after this date, and the fact that claimants can still lodge claims that will never be considered not only is a nuisance to all those involved in the process but threatens to make a mockery of the law—again this matter will be resolved by these amendments—and where claims are made over stock routes or stock reserves and the land commissioner had not commenced a hearing by 1 March 1990, for there was never any intention for the act to apply to stock routes or reserves. However, the confusion created by the deficiencies of the amendments proclaimed in 1990 means that there is still, to this day, doubt about the status of these vital economic lifelines. In fact, in 1995 the previous federal government agreed with the Northern Territory government that these changes should be made in exchange for the expediting of grants of community living areas to Aboriginal people.

There has been considerable discussion in recent years about reconciliation. I am one of those who believe that the sooner we actually do it rather than talk about it the better off we will all be. Something like 50 per cent of the Northern Territory is owned by Aboriginal people. For most Australians, particularly those in the Northern Territory, the issue around land rights has well and truly been fought and won and, if not resolved, it is certainly accepted as part of the law of the Commonwealth and the general community. Therefore, the real issue for the future is to do with Aboriginal people and their general wellbeing. I challenge Aboriginal people, as Noel Pearson has in recent months, to think in terms of the damage that welfare is doing. While noting the damage done certainly by past policies, however well-meaning or however destructive they may have been, I think the real issue of reconciliation is to do with moving Aboriginal people forward in terms of employment, health, education and all of those things that I think most Australians would regard as basic rights and tenets of being an Australian citizen.

I therefore believe that, in terms of the Aboriginal land rights, rather than focus on these legal issues which have absorbed an enormous amount of resource and time and effort—and that includes, I may say, native title—it is much more important that we should be thinking much more as a nation and as a parliament about how we actually address the practical issues of the Aboriginal people. With the preamble statement yesterday which the Prime Minister was able to very skilfully bring to this parliament, I believe we will see Aboriginal people acknowledged in a practical way and in a very real way for the first time in our preamble to our Constitution. I will keep stressing that reconciliation is not something that you talk about; reconciliation is something that you actually do. Reconciliation is something that has suffered as a word because of being taken in vain to cover a whole range of sins. So let's just do it. As a well-known marketing campaign says: let's just do it.

With regard to the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the health area, just yesterday in the popular press the very difficult circumstances which face Aboriginal people by way of health were well documented once more. If I can focus particularly on health for a minute, these things can only be resolved by a real ownership by Aboriginal people, which is very important, and by a partnership between the Commonwealth and states and community to make sure that we get the most effective programs to get ownership and improvement in health outcomes. But also they must be financed by resources which can come only from a modern, almost 21st century economy. So, while respecting the traditional owner principle, I think the real challenge in land rights is that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot on the one hand say that we have a land ownership system which gives the economic benefits that most people want, including I think most Aboriginal people, at the same time as we restrict economic development. We must all, in the spirit of reconciliation, work to try to do the best for an economic outcome so that we can give the social outcomes.

I want to pay tribute to the Northern Territory government, which I believe is much maligned in this area. Australians must recognise that it is all very well to criticise those who have to administer and have to actually do it when the population of their particular territory is, say, 25 per cent Aboriginal. If you come from Sydney or Melbourne—or the `leafy suburbs' as they are so well described from time to time—these issues do not present at your doorstep. It is very important that we acknowledge the effort of those people in the regions, of those states and territories who actually have to deal with these very difficult issues, and that we do not sound too self-righteous in this place, because most Australians do not actually have to deal with the issue in a hand-to-hand practical way that actually delivers a solution.

I make the appeal in this place that, in all of the rhetoric and discussion around land rights, we recognise that we do need partnerships, we do need to work together, we do need to have frameworks and proper Public Service and accountability processes which will deliver the outcomes, and that we do not sit in various camps and throw stones at one another. I, for one, put on the record the genuine efforts that have been made by the territories and the states, and particularly by those people in the regions who have to endure the results of policies from this place and this Commonwealth which have had good intent but from time to time have not delivered the outcomes in the most effective way. Certainly, most of the constituents of this place do not have to live with and do not have to experience the practical outcome of what the policies sometimes mean. With those few words, I wish this legislation speedy passage. As to the process of reconciliation, it is time that we just did it.