Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill is introduced to this parliament as virtually an amended version to a similar bill introduced by the member for Blain in the first half of 2007 during 10th assembly. Since that time circumstances have changed in light of the fact that the Blue Mud Bay decision has now been finalised. I feel it is appropriate to revisit this matter, by way of having the bill reintroduced as an amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act and further debated. It is the intention to have this bill passed into law to provide a means by which non-Indigenous people may have access to the inter-tidal zone without the need for a specific permit to be issues. At the outset, I want to assure all members of this house that this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the current permit system as it stands. It is designed and intended to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners and relevant land councils can open up by way of a general exemption, the inter- tidal zones to the general public, or a particular class of the public. At the present time, except for where provided by the provisions of section 9 and 19 of the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory relating to exceptional circumstances, anyone other than Aboriginal who is entitled by Aboriginal tradition must obtain a permit in order to enter Aboriginal land or closed seas. Both the terms Aboriginal land and closed seas are defined in the Act of section 3 where Aboriginal land is defined as having the same meaning as in the Aboriginal Land Rights, (Northern Territory) Act 1976 of the Commonwealth and closed seas means seas closed by notice in the Gazette under section 12. The decision of the Federal Court and subsequent machinations of that court to consider the inter- tidal zone as Aboriginal land, has brought with it, the issues which were never and could never be considered in deliberations and debate on the original Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory. I believe the act would have been brought in to be based on the premise of Aboriginal land and seas should be subject to the use of traditional owners and the permission could be given to certain individuals to enter that land or those seas, if they have a legitimate reason for doing so. Currently, the method for providing this permission is by way of a permit issued to a single individual. This is what is enshrined in the act at Sections 5 and 15. This amendment does not seek to diminish that original intent, but to add to it, in a way that provides Aboriginal people a broader power to determine who comes onto or into the inter- tidal zone, which is now considered as Aboriginal land. Just for the sake of completeness for the purposes of Hansard, the inter-tidal zone is the area of land between the high water mark and the low water mark of certain water ways in the Northern Territory. In terms of the actual physical process of accessing the inter-tidal zone, this could be done in two ways, either by water or land. I will deal with the land access method in the first instance. In this situation, hypothetical, a recreational fisherman might like to fish the Rose River in East Arnhem Land at Numbulwar. To get there by road, he drives out along the Roper Highway, turns off just this side of Ngukurr and continues to Numbulwar. The fisherman must enter Aboriginal land, taken in the traditional sense and, to do this, he must get a permit to enter that Aboriginal land, as he would have to have done prior to the Blue Mud Bay decision. Under these circumstances, the permit, by virtue of the Blue Mud Bay decision, includes now the inter-tidal zone where he will access the waterway and conduct his fishing. Because he has obtained a permit to enter that Aboriginal land, there will be no need for him to be considered under the general exemption that is proposed in this amendment. In the second scenario, the same recreational fisherman launches his boat in the higher reaches of the Daly River, where a permit to enter Aboriginal land is not required. He motors down to a part of the river which falls into the area affected by Blue Mud Bay. To fish, enter or remain in the inter-tidal zone, he would currently require a permit, issued under the auspices of Northern Land Council. Similarly, had he entered the Daly River from the sea, he would be subject to the same restrictions as if he had come from the upper reaches. There is nothing that would precluded him from having previously applied for and obtained a permit under section 5. Yet, it might well be the decision of Aboriginal people of those reaches of the Daly or the Northern Land Council that all recreational fishermen are permitted to fish the inter-tidal zone. For that matter, it might be that the traditional owners may wish to open up the inter-tidal zone to people wearing blue shirts or white sandshoes. The point is that the decision on who may enter those inter-tidal waters still lies wholly and completely with those traditional owners or the relevant land council. Under the current legislation, there is no provision for the traditional owner or the land council to provide, other than by way of permit issued to an individual, for a group such as recreational fishermen to enter their inter-tidal zone. This amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act introduces a provision to allow that to happen. The amendment also outlines at proposed new clause 7A(2)(c) that a general exemption may also be made subject to any conditions as stated in the instruments of exemption; thus, granting traditional owners and the relevant land council further powers in determining such matters as who, how, when, how often etcetera. Again, this proposed amendment does not, in any way, derogate from the current provisions of the act but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions. As far as breaches of the permit system goes, sections 4 and 14 of the act provide for the offences of entering Aboriginal land or closed seas respectively, and will continue to provide for those offences. Under the Blue Mud Bay decision, the land encapsulated in the inter-tidal zone is now considered Aboriginal land as per the definition. Entering the inter-tidal zone, either without a permit or without the benefit of an exemption under this amendment, would still constitute an offence, as it constitutes an offence at the present time under the present incarnation of the act. This proposed amendment should not be considered at all controversial. Yet, I fear there will be some in the community who will see such an amendment as a derision or, in some way, as an attack on the permit system as it currently stands. There may be some in the community who, whether with good intention or not, or with misguided loyalty or not, may see this as a gradual erosion of the permit system, and this is definitely not the case. The current permit system will remain just as it is, if this amendment to the Aboriginal Land Act is passed. If it were deemed appropriate and right, having regard for the contemporary wishes - and I repeat the contemporary wishes - of Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, to review the permit system as it currently stands, then this would be a matter for a great deal of consultation, very careful consideration, and a great deal of debate for some time in the future. In the meantime, the remainder of the Aboriginal Land Act would remain unmolested. For all the reasons provided thus far in this portion of the debate, I believe this amendment is a progressive way of furthering the empowerment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It is a way of allowing Aboriginal people to have more say and more self-determination with respect to who they may allow to enter the inter-tidal zone which is now deemed to be Aboriginal land. One only has to look at what is occurring around the Northern Territory at the present time with regard to negotiations between government, other stakeholders, and Aboriginal traditional land owners and land councils with respect to Blue Mud Bay. The Tiwi Land Council has decided, unless that has changed in recent times, to virtually go their own way when it comes to negotiating access rights for people to gain access to the inter-tidal zone around the Tiwis. That is a prime example of how Aboriginal people are taking it up for themselves in their own level of determination. The Northern Territory government is guilty of failing thus far to expedite negotiations, and I understand that they have now, fairly recently, been party (inaudible). However, they have been party. The opposition has seen fit to leap into the fray with this because we felt that we were able to produce a bill with some amendments that would facilitate just what the Tiwi Islanders and the Tiwi Land Council are doing off their own bat. This is an amendment that we feel would be effective and efficient in delivering self-determination to indigenous people who are custodians of the inter-tidal zone. I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-tidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and an accompanying explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. |