Page 1764 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Native Land Titles
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I address my question to the Chief Minister. I refer the Minister to a number of suggestions in the national media over the past few weeks that some grants of leasehold may not extinguish native title under the Mabo principle. I refer in particular to comments of the Prime Minister, reported in the Canberra Times of 9 June, in which he said that native title could be revived in circumstances where short-term leases expire. I note that the Chief Minister has repeatedly asserted today in the house that traditional owners will not have access to leased land in the ACT, or that it is most unlikely. I think the words that she used were that it would be very unlikely. Can the Chief Minister explain to the Assembly why it is that the short-term leases - - -
Mr Berry: What a bunch of rednecks! I have never heard anything like this.
MR HUMPHRIES: Can I have some order, please, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes. Order, please!
MR HUMPHRIES: Can the Chief Minister explain why it is that the short-term leases to which the Prime Minister refers, which would revive native title, are not the sorts of short-term leases operating in the ACT, say for periods of less than 10 years, granted very commonly over commercial properties in the Territory? Precisely, why will those short-term leases expiring not revive native title to that land?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I have advised from the very outset that this is a complex matter, but Mr Humphries has raised in particular the question of short-term leases and whether they may or may not extinguish native title. I would remind members that most leases in the ACT, and all residential leases, are for a period of 99 years. You could hardly regard that as short term. Similarly, other leases within the ACT are usually for considerable periods, up to 99 years. In other places, for instance in Tasmania, there are some leases issued on a year-by-year basis. Depending on how long such a lease had continued in total, you could take the view that a one-year lease was a short-term lease.
I would remind members again, Madam Speaker, of the terms of the Mabo decision. In the Mabo decision the High Court held that native title rights survived settlement in circumstances where indigenous peoples have maintained their connection with the land and where the title has not been extinguished by some action of the Government - for instance, legislation or the granting of title and so on. So there are conditions upon it, Madam Speaker. There are conditions upon the High Court's decision. The impact of the High Court's decision is to create a new entitlement to land. That is not to say that it grants the land. It grants an entitlement, or that there may be held to be an entitlement over particular land. Nevertheless, I can only repeat what I have said several times: In the ACT the legal advice which I have is that a Mabo-style claim would be most unlikely to succeed or to have an impact on our leases, whether they are residential, commercial or rural.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .