Page 1765 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is very much to be regretted that members opposite continue to run this line that there is some threat to the population of the ACT by virtue of the Mabo decision. I think that the actions and the sentiments expressed by members opposite really do fail to take any note whatsoever of the opportunities that are offered by the Mabo decision to redress some old wrongs. That is clearly this Government's position, and it will be our position, Madam Speaker, while ever there is such disadvantage suffered by the Aboriginal community. I think that, by seeking to take a very narrow land management and land ownership view of this decision, the members opposite are really failing to take advantage of an opportunity that might make them look a little bit broad-minded, a little bit statespersonlike, and a little bit as though they were looking for a solution rather than looking for further division within the community, and even further disadvantage to the Aboriginal community by appearing to set them against the rest of the community. Finally, Madam Speaker, by their own utterances, they are seeking to threaten the further economic development of this Territory. That is what they are doing. Let there be no mistake about it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Speaker, I ask for further clarification. Is the Minister saying that there are no short-term leases of the kind the Prime Minister referred to on 8 June in the ACT, or is she saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to suggest that the expiry of short-term leases would revive native title?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, as I recall the Prime Minister's comments, the circumstances in which he made those comments related to mining leases; to where a company may go into an area, look for minerals or for some product which they wish to exploit, may then exploit it over a period of some years and then move out. When they move out, native title may be revived. That is the context in which the Prime Minister made that statement, to the best of my recollection, Madam Speaker. Clearly, those circumstances do not apply in the ACT. We do not have mining, for one thing. If they want to split hairs about what is and what is not a short-term lease, I would say to them that that is the very kind of work that has to go on before we can reach a final position on the Mabo decision in relation to the ACT.
I would like to say, Madam Speaker, that no government in Australia has yet reached that position. In the ACT our situation is more complex than most, because of the leasehold system and because of the Commonwealth's interest in ACT land. I would be absolutely amazed if the ACT, given our more complex position, could get ahead of any other government on this matter. In fact, by seeking a national solution to the issue, I think that we are doing the best possible thing for the ACT, as I have constantly said. I just wish that members opposite would be a little more conciliatory in their approach; that they would show a little more of an interest in finding a solution, rather than attempting to draw up the barriers and to mark out their territory over which no-one shall trespass. I think that is extremely divisive and very much to be regretted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .