|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Australian Greens
Dissenting Report
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory)
Amendment Bill 2006
The Australian Greens are concerned that the ALRA (NT)
Amendment Bill 2006 will have significant impacts on Aboriginal communities. We
are disappointed that while there has been effective stakeholder consultation
over some sections of this Bill (which has produced workable provisions that
have community support), this has been undermined by the tacking on of a number
of other controversial amendments on which there has been little or no
consultation. This problem has been compounded by the inadequate time allowed
for the Senate inquiry, which effectively gave stakeholders little more than
two weeks to respond to these complex issues.
While the majority committee report lists a number of
substantial issues with the Bill, its final recommendation does not adequately
address these problems. We question the logic of passing those sections of this
Bill which are arguably flawed on the proviso that the Government undertake
stakeholder consultation and negotiation after the fact. If parts of the Bill
are unworkable or have unintended consequences then these issues need to be
addressed first, and no amount of information dissemination can change the
on-the-ground impacts of bad law once it is passed.
On this basis the Australian Greens are recommending that
the Bill is split so that those provisions on which there has been adequate
consultation and for which there is stakeholder support can be passed
immediately, while allowing more time to develop amendments to the more
controversial provisions for which there has not been proper community
consultation and preserving the stated intention of the Bill to foster the
economic development so sorely needed in Aboriginal communities.
Economic development
The issue of facilitating economic development on Aboriginal
land, particularly in relation to developing enterprise and employment
opportunities for remote Aboriginal communities, is an extremely important one
that requires a considered and concerted approach. We are pleased to see that
the Government is now demonstrating a willingness to address this issue, but
are concerned that the current approach is unlikely to prove effective.
Community leasing
We are concerned that while the intention of the proposed
changes are laudable ( in terms of promoting housing, private investment,
entrepreneurship and other forms of economic development) the manner in which
they are being implemented is unlikely to produce these desired results and at
the same time will have a number of unintended consequences which may in fact
undermine economic development. In particular, there is a danger that the head
leasing and sub-leasing provisions mean that traditional owners relinquish
control and cannot prevent inappropriate commercial development on sub-leased
land.
Delegation of Land Council powers
We are concerned that these provisions are likely to
undermine the stability and workability of the land councils and promote
dispute and litigation. Furthermore, giving the Minister the power to override
Land Councils will subvert existing governance and accountability arrangements.
Establishment of new Land Councils
We do not believe that a 55% vote represents a substantial
majority, and believe that having such a low threshold increases the likelihood
of internal conflict and instability.
Use of the ABA
We do not believe that the use of the Aboriginal Benefits
Account to fund the new leasing arrangements is appropriate, and we support the
concern of the Minerals Council of Australia that ABA monies are increasingly
being seen as a substitute for government funding of basic social services. We
are concerned that, by effectively taking over administration of ABA funds, the
Government is undermining the fund's role in encouraging and supporting
economic development initiatives.
Mining & exploration agreements
We note that the 2003 Joint Submission recommended that
there should be no restriction on the content of mining and exploration
agreements (because of the extent to which existing arrangements acted as a
disincentive to entering into exploration agreements) and that the OIPC
appeared to be unable to provide a substantive reason for ignoring this
recommendation in their response. Given that there is support for this
initiative from both the land councils and the mining industry and that it is
likely to encourage greater economic development we believe that these
restrictions should be removed.
Intertidal zones
We do not support the termination of non-contiguous claims
to intertidal zones, river beds and banks and believe that further work is
required to resolve this issue in a satisfactory manner.
Recommendation
That the Bill be
split so that those aspects of the Bill on which there has been proper community
consultation and on which there is substantive stakeholder agreement can be
supported unanimously (i.e. those agreed in the 2003 Joint Submission), and
those provisions on which there is significant community concern and an
acknowledged need for further information dissemination, negotiation and
amendment (i.e. head leases, delegation of powers, what constitutes a
'substantial majority', use of the ABA, restrictions on mining agreements,
finalising land claims) can be further developed and return to the Parliament
at a later date.
Senator Rachel Siewert,
AG, Western Australia
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
