Page 1798 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is clear from my reading of the High Court's decision that the matter can be resolved in a number of ways. One is by acceding to claims. Another is by legislating. It is made quite clear in the judgment that State and Territory governments - well, at least, State governments - can act to extinguish native title through the passage of laws. That appears, perhaps, an excessive response. But it may be appropriate to indicate at certain points where the debate shall not go; to indicate how far Aboriginal groups should expect, or should not expect, their claims to be able to go. The Commonwealth Government has already done that. It did that in respect of the McArthur River project in the Northern Territory. It did that through the agency of the Northern Territory Government, at the Commonwealth Government's request.
I am saying to this ACT Government: Consider whether it is not appropriate to similarly delimit the extent of any native claim against leasehold land in the ACT. What have we to lose? If the ACT Government is confident that no leasehold will be affected by this claim - the Chief Minister has said that she cannot be certain that it will not be - if she is certain that there will be no claim against leasehold land that would be successful, then legislate to make it absolutely crystal clear. That will assure non-Aboriginal Australians that this debate is not going to range into that question and it will also limit any possible unclarity or lack of indication in the High Court decision that will ensure that this debate stays on the important parts - that is, on areas where I think we can reasonably expect claims to be made and at least considered. An example of an area where that claim might be considered, obviously, would be the Namadgi National Park. Again the question arises: If the ACT Government is not prepared to accept that claim - it gave no indication whatsoever when Mr Westende asked that question in the course of question time - then the question of compensation arises, and we need, again, to have some approach to that.
I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am greatly disappointed that 12 months after the Mabo decision we have no indication from this Government, with any precision at all, of where it stands on Mabo. Mabo was not decided last week in Melbourne. It was not decided two weeks ago when claims were made against substantial parts of the Australian continent. It was made early in June 1992, and the words of the learned justices of the High Court have been on all our lips since that time. It should have been possible to develop a little more precision and have a few more answers to questions than we were able to receive in question time today. I hope, Madam Speaker, that in the not too distant future we will have answers to some of these difficult questions.
Mr Lamont: It took the High Court only two-and-a-half years!
MR HUMPHRIES: The fact of life is that they are questions of fundamental importance to the future of this Territory. Joke as they might across the chamber, there are many Australians, many citizens of Canberra, who are desperately anxious to know the answer to these questions.
Mr Connolly: And you are stirring them up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .