Page 3475 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conservatives not being happy with this process. You heard the remarks of Mr Kaine in unequivocal support for the concept. You also heard my remarks along the same lines at the time of the Mabo decision. You heard those things. I challenge you to tell me what it is that we said that is not now borne out by the events; that you, yourselves, have not picked up and done by this legislation before the Assembly tonight.
I repeat, Madam Speaker, that this Opposition - this may be different from the position of other Liberals in other parts of Australia; I do not comment or apologise for them - this Liberal Party, in this Territory, has maintained that the Mabo process needed to be followed through with legislation ensuring that native title, where it was appropriate within the Mabo principles, was honoured. We have stood by that position and we believe that that process is advanced successfully by validating existing title - that is, existing leaseholds granted in the ACT. That is the position to which, apparently, now, all in the Assembly converge; but it is worth acknowledging that there was never any serious difference about that matter in the first place.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.01), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. I will substantially ignore Mr Humphries's attempt at ex post facto rationalisation of what was a very dubious position on this legislation, and he knows it, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, Mr Kaine and Ms Szuty have addressed the issue comprehensively and have clearly understood the nature of it. I am very pleased indeed to be making concluding comments on the Bill, which, as members know, arises from that decision of the High Court of Australia. That decision challenged Australian society to reassess its relationship with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. As Mr Kaine has said, the High Court's decision not only has required us to address the complex legal and land management issues; it has also further focused attention on the broader social justice issues. These include reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and redressing the disadvantage that they so frequently face.
The legal origins of the Bill before us stem from the rejection of the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius - land belonging to no-one - at the time of European settlement. Rather, it is now accepted that the common law of Australia recognises an entitlement by the indigenous inhabitants of Australia to their traditional lands. This entitlement, according to the court, can be exercised within the framework of the laws and customs of the people involved. However, Madam Speaker, the High Court also held that native title rights may be extinguished by valid government acts, such as the grant of freehold or leasehold estates.
The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 was developed by the Commonwealth Government in response to that High Court decision. That Act provides the framework within which the Bill that is now before us is designed to operate. In particular, the Commonwealth's Act allows the recognition and protection of native title, establishes ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed, and sets standards for those dealings. The Commonwealth Act establishes the Native Title Tribunal for determining claims to native title. The Commonwealth law also validates past acts which are invalid because of the existence of native title, and it allows jurisdictions such as the ACT to validate any such acts attributable to it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .