Mr SNOWDON (9:59 AM) —It is my pleasure to speak in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 , although I have to disagree with the member for Grey and the previous government speakers, including the member for Indi, over their statements in relation to the politics of land rights. I will come to that in a moment.

Our position on this piece of legislation is that it should be opposed for the very good reason that it is simply unnecessary. It is effectively using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In the case of the Elliott stockyards, it has been made very clear that Aboriginal people have no problem with the land remaining as stockyards, and they have no problem with the land being surrendered. They recognise that, although the land may have been made available to them by an error, nevertheless it has been made available to them and, for that purpose, it is now Aboriginal land.

The government, effectively, is seeking to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land which has been validly granted under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act, although we might say in error. This is the first occasion that I am aware of that there has been an attempt by the federal government to override the property rights of indigenous Australians and to compulsorily acquire their land. It is simply unnecessary. It has been done without any consultation with the Northern Land Council—which have a statutory responsibility to administer Aboriginal land in the northern part of the Northern Territory and are responsible to the traditional owners of that land—or with the traditional owners themselves. There has been no consultation with them by the federal government.

This is something which has come out of the blue because of the incapacity of the Northern Territory government to come to terms with its responsibilities. This is where I differ markedly from the member for Grey and the member for Indi, who in various ways said that it was time to move on, that really we should be acknowledging that land rights are a reality, that the politics of it should be overlooked and that we should be looking positively towards partnerships. With that I can only agree. The problem is that to have a partnership you need willing partners, and the difficulty in the Northern Territory's case is that, historically, the Northern Territory government has not been a willing partner.

The Northern Land Council, on behalf of the traditional owners of the Elliott stock yards, have offered to cede this block of land on the proviso that arrangements are put in place which focus on health, safety and cultural concerns. This is a substantial act of good faith by the indigenous owners of this block of land. I ask the Northern Territory government: why is it that you have failed to respond to initiatives from the Northern Land Council, on behalf of the traditional owners, that were put to you as far back as 1995?

There is no question in my mind—and, if you accept the evidence which was given to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, there is no question at all—that there is a solution available which does not require legislation from this parliament to compulsorily acquire a block of land, with all that that entails. Indeed, Justice Olney, who is the Land Commissioner, proposed a resolution to the issue. If my memory serves me correctly, he suggested that one way of dealing with this issue without any compulsory acquisition was for a long-term lease to be granted for the stockyards—an eminently sensible proposition.

What is also acknowledged in the evidence given to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee is that the stockyards have continued to be used as stockyards—they have not been taken out of use. So I ask the government: what are you doing here? Why have you been moved to use this very heavy sledgehammer to acquire land that you might regard as having been given erroneously, but nevertheless to require a compulsory acquisition of someone's property rights? I do not think it is good public policy to overcome an error made by someone—I am told, the surveyors—carrying out their official functions as servants of this act in such a manner. After the land had been granted legitimately, despite the error and having recognised that the Aboriginal people who are owners of that country are prepared to cede it by agreement, why the hell do you need to compulsorily acquire it? There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for this piece of legislation in that regard.

I say to the government: if your rhetoric about reconciliation and partnerships has any validity, now comes the test. Instead of backing your mates in the Northern Territory government, sit down and talk to those traditional owners about an agreement, which they have offered to do. The Northern Territory government, however, has not been prepared to sit at the table. In fact, evidence was given by one of the Northern Territory government officials that they put this proposition to the Northern Territory government, and the Northern Territory government ministers failed to respond. In that instance, I do not believe that the federal government, as the custodian of the land rights act in the context of land which has now been ceded to Aboriginal people, is acting at all responsibly by seeking to use this sledgehammer, as I have discussed.

You have to wonder why it is that, if a group of people are prepared to sit down and negotiate a deal which would give a satisfactory outcome—bearing in mind that use has been guaranteed for those people who have traditionally used the stockyards—we have adopted this course. It is because, unfortunately, the Northern Territory government does not share at least the rhetorical vision of some members of the government. They have not traditionally shared this idea of a partnership.

I note that the member for Indi is in this House and I am pleased he is here. Understanding the complex relationship that exists between Aboriginal people and the Northern Territory government and the rest of the Australian community is important, but you need also to be aware of the historical facts and understand that, ever since this land rights act was initially passed through this federal parliament, the battle lines have been drawn. From almost day one, the Northern Territory government has continued to attack and undermine the rights of indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory in relation to this land rights act, and has sought at every moment to diminish them and take away their rights.

I was present when Ayers Rock, Uluru, was handed over to indigenous Australians. The Governor-General in a magnificent ceremony transferred the title to the traditional owners and Yami Lester, on behalf of the traditional owners, effectively said, `Look, here it is; we're not going to take it away anywhere.' At the same time, a plane flew overhead tailing a great sign which said, `Ayers Rock for all Australians' or words to that effect. Do you know who promoted that? It was the Northern Territory Chief Minister. He refused to attend the ceremony. And that has happened time and time again.

We sit in this House and we hear the rhetorical cries from the government that somehow or another Aboriginal people have to come to terms with the fact that they have to deal with this government—warts and all—and accept the malevolent way that they have been dealt with over so many years, and do it without umbrage. Those members of the government need to very seriously contemplate why Aboriginal people should accept the bona fides of such a government. I say to you: on almost every occasion they have shown their preparedness to.

We have recently gone through a debate here about environmental legislation which impacts upon the land rights act. You would recall that Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Kakadu National Park have boards of management. At the same time as Uluru was transferred to traditional ownership, the Northern Territory government refused a seat on the board. Now they want a right to sit on the board legislated. They want to be imposed on Aboriginal people. They rejected an offer by Aboriginal people and they have come to this parliament to have their right imposed. What does that say to you about the bona fides of this government?

I have lived and worked in the Northern Territory for many years. I have lived and worked with indigenous Australians for many years, and I am scandalised by the unremitting attacks upon individuals and organisations by the CLP government in the Northern Territory and by its members in this federal parliament. I say to the member for Indi and the member for Grey: I accept your interest. I can see you are sincere about your desire to bring about some meaningful reconciliation of interests, but you must understand that there is heavy baggage, and that baggage weighs on the minds of people when they think about the way in which the Northern Territory government deals with them.

We had recently—I will make just passing reference to this, but it is important—a court case in the Northern Territory, where I was named, over unfair dismissal. The plaintiff exercised his legitimate right to sue for unfair dismissal. Ultimately, he was successful. It is now under appeal. In the course of evidence a number of things were claimed by that person. Yesterday in the Senate a conservative member of the government did what they have traditionally done. He attacked, smeared and slipped right into the gutter to personalise this particular issue. He made outrageous claims about individuals. It does not worry me in the slightest what he says about me—it is water off a duck's back—but I am very concerned about the absolute abuse of privilege that has been a consistent hallmark of Senator Tambling's representation of the Northern Territory.

I can recall the days when Charlie Perkins was demonised by this man. All sorts of nefarious claims were made. Yesterday he went another step. Yesterday he made claims about one of my staff and Mick Dodson. Mick Dodson is a fine Australian; a great Australian. I have to say to that senator that Mick Dodson is someone whose integrity cannot be impugned by him or any judge. Tony Haritos is another fine Australian. He is an honest hard worker, someone with a great deal of integrity. He has far more integrity than this man who masquerades as a representative of the Northern Territory community—someone who has been told to move on by his own party.

Would you be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the CLP had a conference in Alice Springs? The retiring Deputy Chief Minister, Barry Coulter, who is no longer a member of parliament, suggested that Grant Tambling had passed his use-by date. He has passed his use-by date, and he continues to use his parliamentary privilege to abuse privilege, denigrate individuals, distort facts and try to smear. The member for Indi said in this chamber that we should take the politics out of land rights. I tell you, comrade, I am happy to.

I have never used this House or my position as a federal member to denigrate an individual—never—and I refuse to do so, but I will argue the policy. Yesterday in the federal parliament we saw the unsightly ramifications of what happens when someone loosely uses their position to abuse privilege and attack individuals and organisations. Let me just repeat a couple of things he said.

Mr Melham —No, don't repeat them; they are not worth repeating.

Mr SNOWDON —No. He has challenged the efficacy, the legitimacy and the legality of administrative actions of the Northern Land Council in the distribution of moneys under their act. He used very emotive and descriptive terms about this distribution. What he failed to do was check with the Australian National Audit Office. I have a copy of the National Audit Office report in front of me. This is the basis of this man's asinine attack yesterday. I will read one sentence from paragraph 7.87, page 48 of the Australian National Audit Office report:

In advice received by ATSIC on the 10th of December 1992, the Attorney-General's department, the NLC's actions were confirmed as being within the provisions of the act.

I do not think we should contemplate the sort of asinine behaviour which is coming from the senator. Frankly, I dismiss it, but I use it as an illustration. We have the member for Grey honestly and sincerely talking about partnerships. We have the member for Indi talking about saving the millions of dollars that have been spent on litigation. I agree with him, but go and look at the records—go and find out who sued whom; go and find out who are the winners in those legal cases. I can tell you. Of the 30 or 40 times it went to the full court of the High Court of Australia, almost invariably—90 to 95 per cent—those cases were taken by the Northern Territory government and they lost. Why were they doing it? They were trying to undermine the legitimate rights that Aboriginal people have been accorded under this land rights act.

When the government members come into this place and talk about the importance of partnerships, understand the current baggage, the current attacks. My friend, look at the public record of the head of the Liberal Party—the now President of the Liberal Party. I will send you copies of his speeches. If you want to see someone who has no understanding of or belief in reconciliation or partnership, he is one. He, like his other redneck colleagues continually attack individuals on the basis of their colour. I do not think it is acceptable, and I am sure you do not. But now this person has been elected President of the Australian Liberal Party.

To me the issues are very clear. There are processes by which we can deal with errors such as have been identified, which are the cause of the legislation before us today. But the best and most appropriate way to deal with them, as I am sure the member for Indi agrees, is by sitting down and negotiating—not using litigation, not abusing the power of government to take people to court, not using the power and privilege of parliament to attack and denigrate individuals, but by sitting down and working out solutions which all people can agree with. That is the model I am after, and I am sure that the negotiations for the partnership which is being talked about by the member for Indi and the member for Grey should take place. I accept that it should not be about self-righteousness; it should be about the reality of bringing people to terms with one another. They do not require the interference of this sort of legislation by the federal parliament. For that reason I oppose it.