Page 5564 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
our city, albeit in a non-traditional way; they still have a relationship and an affinity with the land and the various locations that we are talking about. So, it is our view that there should be a requirement for the agreement of the relevant Aboriginal organisation to the release of restricted information.
The fact that a site is restricted is not necessarily, I would suggest, critical; but I think further information may be a difficulty and I think we need to think very carefully about it. That is why we propose that there be a requirement for the agreement of any relevant Aboriginal organisation before a Minister makes such a declaration. That is why I originally pushed for the inclusion of an Aboriginal advisory council made up of three members representing the local Aboriginal community in this area, generally known as the Ngunawal people.
However, I accept that the proposal that was put to me - to use the words "any relevant Aboriginal organisation", as we now have in this amendment - would meet that criterion. I accepted that, and that seems okay. But I will be interested to see whether the Minister retains his view that restricted information should be made available, even though the traditional holders, if you like, of that information are not happy with the release of that information.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.40): There is no difference of opinion on most of these matters around this Assembly. We all want the same outcomes. The difference arises in Mr Jensen's very prescriptive approach. What he may do in this circumstance, with this amendment, is excite the curiosity of a lessee, saying, "Look, there is something there which I cannot tell you much about" - and leave it at that. I believe that that is unsatisfactory. I believe that these matters proceed effectively when you inform people properly and expect that you will get their cooperation. If you go only so far, and exhibit a degree of suspicion about what a lessee may do, you are going in the wrong direction and you are likely to create trouble.
A further problem with Mr Jensen's amendment is that he talks of a "relevant Aboriginal organisation". There is not, in the ACT, to my knowledge, the great range of Aboriginal organisations or differences amongst Aborigines that you find in other places. Nevertheless, the term "relevant" could impose difficulties upon us. You might get more than one opinion there and create difficulties. I think we should hold to the original clause.
MR JENSEN (4.41): If the Minister looks at page 23 of the Bill - I presume that it must be there, where he assisted me before - I think he will find that there is a quite clear definition of what a relevant Aboriginal organisation is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .