Legislative Assembly 8144 30 May 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 318

THURSDAY, 30 MAY 1991

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Employment, Vocational Education and Training Act 1988-1990 Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1990 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1989 Supreme Court Act of 1921 Industrial Development Act 1963-1987 Regulations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989-1990 By-laws under the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1979-1990 Proclamation under the Queensland Small Business Corporation Act 1990. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Business Investment in Queensland Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: The purpose of my statement is to set the record straight on the state of business investment in Queensland. The latest Queensland Economic Review clearly demonstrates that Queensland's share of business investment in Australia has grown steadily over the past year or so and the investment outlook is likely to be less recessed in Queensland than in other States. Treasury figures show that Queensland's share of business investment next year should rise to over 14 per cent, up from 13 per cent at the beginning of 1990. Private sector analysts confirm this more optimistic picture for Queensland. For example, Rider Hunt, construction industry consultants, last month described Queensland as the "investment State of the 1990s", saying we "will lead Australia out of this recession". Rider Hunt quotes this State's excellent financial management as one of the reasons for that. I acknowledge that business confidence remains fragile, but the deliberate disinformation being spread by members of the Opposition can serve no good. The people of Queensland should examine their motives. It seems they are endeavouring to talk the economy down because they see some short-term political benefits to themselves in so doing. In a statement issued last week, the Opposition Leader listed examples of the Goss Government's supposed inaction. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! A ministerial statement is being made and I ask the member for Surfers Paradise to cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: These examples are the Yabulu nickel refinery, the Collinsville coalmine, the Comalco smelter, and the Mount Isa gas pipeline. Mr Stoneman: What have you done about it? Mr De LACY: If the honourable member just waits, I will address that. Of course, the Opposition Leader enjoys a luxury that is not available to the Government—he does Legislative Assembly 8145 30 May 1991 not have to be concerned about the state of negotiations or the confidentiality and sensitivity that obviously attaches to a good deal of the work involved in securing a major project. Within those sorts of constraints, I will address some of the issues raised by the Opposition. Yabulu Given the Opposition Leader's comments, it may come as a surprise to honourable members to learn that the Yabulu nickel refinery at Townsville is still operating. More than that, it is operating at full capacity, making a profit, and, together with the mine at Greenvale, is providing over 900 people with full employment. The transition to imported ore is already well under way. Even so, the Government acknowledges that better port facilities are required to enable increased imports in the future. The Townsville Port Authority has commissioned consultants to report on the best way to achieve that objective. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: Detailed technical and commercial negotiations between the company, the port authority, and the Commonwealth and State Governments are continuing. Collinsville If we had taken advice from the National and Liberal Parties, we would have relinquished our rail freight contract with MIM, set up a queue a mile long of other companies seeking similar special concessions, seriously eroded the State's revenue base, and still not have solved MIM's problem at Collinsville. Recent announcements have made it quite clear that the main issue is between MIM and its bankers. In that context, the commercial sensitivities should be obvious—even to the Opposition—and the Government is not about to blunder into a public three-way negotiation. However, as with Yabulu, the mine at Collinsville is operating, the work force is still employed, and the Queensland Government stands ready to play its part, within the bounds of economic responsibility, to keep it that way. Export coal freight rates We are getting plenty of advice from the Opposition about the need to reduce export coal rail freight rates, replacing them, I presume, with higher taxes or reduced services for ordinary Queenslanders. What short memories the Opposition has. Given its history, the rail freight policy should be a bipartisan one. However, let me say this: despite all the cries of anguish about rail freight rates, no Queensland export mine closed throughout the coal depression of the mid 1980s. Indeed, the flexibility of the system is shown by the fact that, since 1984, rail freight concessions provided to the Queensland industry have cost over $600m. Despite the unfavourable market and economy, two new mines—Gordonstone and Jellinbah East—were committed in Queensland last year, and last week's Queensland Economic Review shows that Queensland's coal output in the latest half-year grew at an annual rate of 7.9 per cent. This compares with a decrease of 1.3 per cent for the rest of Australia. With more new mines in close prospect, Queensland's lead in coal production is expected to continue to increase--without us having to forfeit our right to a fair return. Gladstone Power Station The Opposition claims that the Goss Government has "blown" Comalco's expansion plans for aluminium smelting by not consummating the sale of the Gladstone Power Station. To be frank, I must say that the bottom line for Comalco is the cost and security of supply of power. For the Government, the mirror image is the case—the sale price of the power, or the asset itself. It is not an ideological matter for either side, but a hard commercial deal. Comalco understands this, and our relations with it are strong. Legislative Assembly 8146 30 May 1991

Let me provide the Leader of the Opposition with a quick economics lesson. If we sell the power station for less than it is worth and build replacement generation capacity at today's higher costs, that will mean higher electricity prices for both ordinary Queensland consumers and for Queensland industry. Those higher electricity costs will, in turn, erode our competitive position in this State. In the long term, that will cost us jobs, not create them. Mount Isa gas pipeline The State Government has made a renewed offer—and, in my view, a very good offer—to fund the construction of the pipeline from the south-west gas fields to Mount Isa. This offer has been on the table with MIM for some time. Perhaps unfortunately, the gas exercise is not a stand-alone project, which means that our offer will be considered in the context of MIM's wider corporate agenda and timetable. Meanwhile, the south-west Queensland gas fields are proceeding towards a commitment on the basis of other markets. The Goss Government is diligently working behind the scenes to secure and promote major projects in Queensland. Unlike the previous Government, it does not announce projects until they are ready for commitment. As I have said previously, phantom projects create phantom jobs. While I have the opportunity, let me make a comment on the crane mentality that so transfixes the Opposition. It is the economics of symbolism. Major projects are important, but at any time a particular market can only assimilate a small number of them. In times of soft demand, existing producers have a hard-enough time selling output, without the market being saturated by a large chunk of new production. It is easy, but naive, for Governments to think they can wave a magic wand and make it all happen. However, the Government remains confident that a number of major projects will come on stream in the near future; but as I have said a thousand times before, the single most important thing that we as a Government can do, especially in a recession, is get the financial management right—keep taxes down, balance the Budget, keep debt levels down, create an efficient public sector, educate and train our work force, advance spending on public works, and so on. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin! Mr De LACY: That is what we are doing. While Opposition members are talking down the economy and calling for the world's tallest building, the rest of Queensland will have passed them by. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Visit to Japan by Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (10.11 a.m.), by leave: Recently, I returned from a seven-day trip to Japan. The purpose of my visit was to rekindle interest in Queensland—— Mr Cooper interjected. Mr GIBBS: In Japan, they remember the Leader of the Opposition very well. In fact, I am told that there is a Japanese bathhouse dedicated to his memory— Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr GIBBS: —for feats unparalleled. As I was saying, the purpose of my visit was to rekindle interest in Queensland as a tourist destination following the slump that occurred during the Gulf war. Legislative Assembly 8147 30 May 1991

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr GIBBS: The visit was planned to coincide with the release of the Australian Tourist Commission's advertisements featuring Australia's world famous golfer, Greg Norman. The reaction in Japan was overwhelmingly positive. This augurs well for the continued prosperity of the Queensland tourism industry. I seek leave to table my report, which summarises the meetings attended by me and by Queensland Government representatives during my trip to Japan. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr GIBBS: No, I actually saw it in a brochure. Leave granted. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT State Purchasing Policy Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville East—Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development) (10.13 a.m.): I am pleased to be able to announce good news—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister must seek leave. Mr SMITH: I seek leave to make this ministerial statement. Leave granted. Mr SMITH: As I said, I am pleased to be able to announce good news for Queensland business. This week, Cabinet approved the new State purchasing policy, which has been carefully put together after months of consultation with business and industry throughout Queensland. While the overall responsible for the policy rests with my colleague the Honourable Minister for Administrative Services, I have particular responsibility for the code of practice applying to business and industry development. A major beneficiary of the State purchasing policy will be small business, particularly businesses in various regions. Small business accounts for the majority of private sector employment in this State and is particularly important to the economies of this State's regions. The State purchasing policy outlines a number of measures that will benefit small businesses. These include— (1) wider coverage to include all goods, equipment and services; (2) extension of existing provisions to cover purchases by departments and statutory bodies; (3) purchasing will be progressively devolved to departmental and regional office level; (4) agencies in regional Queensland will be able to buy directly from local suppliers. In recognition of the importance of the small-business factor in the overall Queensland economic equation, seminars will be conducted throughout the State to inform suppliers of the opportunities that exist to do business with the Government. There will also be a greater emphasis on training to ensure that purchasing officers—wherever they are in Queensland—fully understand and apply the policy. When evaluating offers, purchasing officers will be required to give weighting to the advantages of buying locally made goods and services and to dealing with local businesses. A State Purchasing Council, comprising private-sector business and industry associations and the Queensland Small Business Corporation, will monitor adherence to this and other requirements. In short, this new State purchasing policy continues the Goss Government's efforts to support business in Queensland. Legislative Assembly 8148 30 May 1991

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Absence of Ministers During Question-time Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: The Deputy Premier will be absent from question-time. He is opening the Local Government Association conference at Barcaldine and opening the Proserpine River to Bowen water supply pipeline at Bowen. The Minister for Transport will be absent. He is attending a series of inspections and meetings with representatives of marine and port authorities and commercial tour operators on Fraser Island. PRIVILEGE Land Rights Protesters, Damage to Parliamentary Precinct Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (10.16 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, honourable members in this House witnessed actions and scenes which directly impacted on the precincts of this House. If demonstrators had gained entry to the Parliament, it had the potential of impacting on the actual work of members themselves. My matter of privilege is the failure to ensure that directions were in place, in adequate time, to enable action to be taken to protect not only the Australian and Queensland flags at their mastheads but also parliamentary property, which was damaged in the ruckus that ensued. In the event of further demonstrations today, I seek an assurance from you, Mr Speaker, that adequate arrangements have been made to protect the Australian and Queensland flags and the precincts of Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Toowong. LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.17 a.m.): I seek leave to move a motion without notice condemning the Government. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 33 NOES, 47 Resolved in the negative. Legislative Assembly 8149 30 May 1991

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. Costs of Ministerial Trips Overseas Mr BEANLAND asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— "What is the detailed cost of each Ministerial overseas trip since 30 June 1990?" Mr W. K. GOSS: In accordance with comprehensive guidelines on ministerial expenditure, spending on overseas travel by Ministers is tabled in the Parliament annually. This information was provided to the Parliament in September 1990 and will again be provided this year. However, in addition to that, in line with the Government's commitment to greater accountability, and in contrast with the practice of previous National Party and Liberal Party Ministers, individual Ministers of this Government are required to report to the Parliament in detail upon returning from each overseas trip on the nature and purpose of that trip. 2. Rural Health Division, Health Department Mrs MC CAULEY asked the Minister for Health— "With reference to the Rural Health Division within the Queensland Health Department— (1) Why has this division been downgraded by the advertising of the present director's position at a salary level 25 per cent lower than previously? (2) Will a set percentage of budget funds be allocated to the division and what number of staff will man this division? (3) Who is the rural health representative on the Queensland Health Council, and who are the members of the Rural Policy Advisory Committee?" Mr McELLIGOTT: (1) Rural health has not and will not be down-graded within the Queensland health service. Under the Goss Government, rural health has been given a top priority with a specific identity, enhanced staff resources and funding for program initiatives. The classification of the director position is at the top of the Band 3 scale under the Public Sector Management and Employment Act. Previously the position was classified exclusively under the medical officers' salary scale. I have taken the view that the best possible person should fill the position of director, that it should not be on the basis of whether or not they hold a medical qualification. (2) Yes, a specified budget will be set aside for policy initiatives in the rural health area. Staff in the area of rural health policy will include both men and women. At this stage of program development in the rural health area, six permanent positions will be established in the central office. Two further positions are being funded from a research grant that the division has been successful in obtaining from a highly competitive national field. (3) The Queensland Health Council is my peak advisory group. The rural health representative on the council will be the chairman of the Rural Policy Advisory Committee, a group constituted under the Health Council with a brief to provide advice on the means to promote, maintain and improve the health and well-being of all people in rural Queensland. The chairman will be Dr Peter Livingstone, Director of the Post Graduate Medical Education Committee at the University of Queensland. Dr Livingstone is currently actively involved in the development of rural health training in Queensland and was a former Director-General of Health and Medical Services. I will be announcing the membership of the committee in the near future. However, I can assure honourable members that the membership will include representation from the diverse organisations and areas of interest involved in health care for rural and isolated Queenslanders. Legislative Assembly 8150 30 May 1991

3. Agricultural Branch, Department of Primary Industries Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the severe budget cutbacks imposed in real terms on his department and the vitally important research and extension work of the Agricultural Branch— (1) How many officers have (a) been retrenched and (b) accepted some form of redundancy? (2) Where were those officers located? (3) What programs were they involved in? (4) What is the current status of those program? (5) What similar cuts are planned?" Mr CASEY: (1 to 5) In answer to the honourable member's five-part question regarding retrenchments or redundancies in the Agricultural Branch of my department, I advise as follows. The Agricultural Branch is part of the Agricultural Division of the Agricultural Production Group of the Department of Primary Industries. Because of the changed emphasis on programs within the department by the Goss Labor Government, late last year all employees who were likely to be affected were offered the opportunity of retraining, redeployment and/or voluntary redundancy with an associated salary package. To date, 11 officers of the Agricultural Branch who sought voluntary redundancy have been offered a package. Three are at Toowoomba, three are at Warwick, two are at Gatton, and one is at each of Kingaroy, Biloela and Beaudesert. The programs with which they were associated cover a wide range of activities within the department. Some of those programs have now run their course, others have become more involved with the private sector, and others are of very low priority. Those people voluntarily accepted a redundancy package. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Lockyer under Standing Order 123A. Mr CASEY: Further areas of my department's activities are currently under review and, on completion of the report of the Public Sector Management Commission, I will be in a better position to determine future priorities. 4. Swine Disease Mr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the frightening speed of mystery swine disease which has caused such huge losses in the North American pig meat industry and which has now begun doing the same in Europe and to the fact that Australians consume a lot of manufactured pig meat imported mainly from two countries affected by the disease, Canada and the Netherlands— Will he undertake to approach his Federal counterpart with a view to halting imports in the interest of protecting the Australian herd, and the livelihood of Australian producers?" Mr CASEY: The so-called mystery swine disease, which causes premature birth, stillbirth and weak piglets in the pig-breeding herds was first seen—— Mr McLean: National Party disease. Mr CASEY: Yes, it is quite clearly a National Party disease, because the first sign of this mystery disease is oedema, which is head-swelling. A little bit of that goes on on the Opposition side. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister gets back to the answer. Legislative Assembly 8151 30 May 1991

Mr CASEY: I am answering the question, Mr Speaker, because it is very informative for honourable members. The next sign of the disease is increased fluid—— Mr BOOTH: I rise to a point of order. That is not an answer to a question. That is just personal abuse. I think it is quite wrong for the Minister to demean this House to that extent. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr CASEY: The honourable member for Warwick is indicating that perhaps the honourable member for Barambah should have asked the question of him rather than of me. As I was saying, the second sign of the disease is increased fluid—— Mr Veivers interjected. A Government member interjected. Mr CASEY: That is correct. Members of the Opposition are behaving like little piglets. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will show more respect for the Chair. I will not be told how to do my job. I ask the Minister to get back to the answer. That is what I am waiting for him to do. Mr Booth interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The Parliament's question-time is being wasted. I am happy to sit here on my feet—I really am—— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: I am happy to stand here until honourable members quieten down. Question- time is being wasted. Mr CASEY: Mr Speaker, I like your Greek way of saying things sometimes. It puts the Irish to shame. The swine disease was first seen in the Federal Republic of Germany in November 1990. It has since been confirmed in Belgium and in the Netherlands, and a similar condition was described in the Unites States of America last year. Officers of my department have been in contact with their Commonwealth Government counterparts and have been advised that the situation is under closer surveillance. Pig meats are only permitted to enter Australia from Continental Europe and the USA provided that they are fully cooked, and, given the present distribution of the condition, this is considered to provide full safeguards for the Australian industry. However, should there be evidence of the disease establishing in Canada, present policy permitting the importation of frozen, uncooked pig meats from that country would need to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I understand that a great deal of effort is going into the identification of the cause of the condition, which is believed to be an infectious agent. 5. Public Forum, Law Reform Commission Mr SMYTH asked the Attorney-General— "(1) Why was it necessary for the Law Reform Commission to hold a public forum? (2) Will these public forums become regular events and, if so, what effect will they have on the process of law reform in this State?" Mr WELLS: I am pleased to inform the House about the first ever public forum to be held by the Queensland Law Reform Commission. On Monday of this week, the Law Reform Commission held a public forum entitled "Looking after the needs of the disabled". The aim of the exercise was essentially to gather information from the people best qualified to identify the problems, and suggest solutions. To this end, the agenda Legislative Assembly 8152 30 May 1991 was circulated among disabled people, their carers and interested groups who play a role in providing care for people with disabilities. More than 300 persons registered an interest, and an overflow crowd attended. The forum was a great success. It gave the members of the Law Reform Commission, who will be making recommendations that will be tabled in this House, the opportunity to learn first-hand of the problems presented by the current law. In answer to the second part of the question—whether or not public forums become a regular event is essentially a matter for the Law Reform Commission itself. However, I consider it amazing that, in 23 years, this is the first forum that the Law Reform Commission has been responsible for convening. That does not necessarily reflect anything at all about the Law Reform Commission. Given that the first forum was such a success, it is my expectation that they will be continued, and I believe this will greatly enhance the process of law reform in this State. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Appointment of Additional Supreme Court Judges Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the unprecedented actions of the State's Chief Justice, who found it necessary to complain publicly about the Government's tardiness and inaction in appointing three new Supreme Court judges. I ask: in view of Mr Justice Macrossan's indication that the Government's failure to provide promised resources has prejudiced the ability of judges to discharge their public duty, does the Premier concede that this represents an intolerable situation for Queensland's Supreme Court, and will he now intervene to end the tardiness exhibited by both the Justice Minister and the Attorney-General to ensure that this deplorable situation is urgently overcome? Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because it is a matter about which the whole community should be concerned. I have been particularly concerned about this since about January or February of this year, when I was approached by the Bar Association and the Law Society, which expressed their concern about the administration of the court system in this State and the associated issue of the provision of resources. Before I proceed to address the complaints and the concerns of the profession, let me say clearly what the Government is prepared to do to address this situation which, I stress, is a matter of concern for the Government. I would like to outline three points that have been discussed by the Minister for Justice, the Attorney-General and me. Our position is basically this: firstly, the Government is prepared to provide three additional judges, if in fact they are needed. The qualifying clause on that is simply that we do not know if those extra judicial resources are needed at this time, because the Justice Department has been unable to obtain access to facts and figures from the court. I stress our preparedness to provide the additional judges if they are needed. Secondly—this has not previously been made public—the Government has privately offered and now publicly offers three acting judges to help clear the current backlog. Thirdly, once that backlog is cleared, the Government will hopefully be in a position to assess the need for resources, given that a large part of the Supreme Court's work has been transferred to the District Court jurisdiction. I am advised by the Justice Department that, since much of the Supreme Court's workload was transferred to the District Court, there are now 50 per cent fewer cases being filed in the Supreme Court. Fourthly, the Government would propose the appointment of a professional court administrator by way of an additional resource to help the Chief Justice and the court solve the current administration problems. Fifthly, the Government believes that it is vital that the court introduce a system of professional case management to help overcome some of the current problems. This is a matter in which the problem is not as clear to the general public as it would appear in this morning's newspaper. Earlier this year, I was approached by Mr Gary Crooke and Mr Peter Short, representing the bar and the Legislative Assembly 8153 30 May 1991

Law Society respectively. They had a series of quite serious concerns about the administration of the courts. I want to refer to one example, and one example only. It is a delicate matter, but I think it highlights the sort of problem that exists. I do so because I think the public has a right to know. In addition, quite frankly, I am somewhat dismayed and disappointed that a Chief Justice anywhere in this country or in the British system of justice would make such a statement—— Mr Palaszczuk: Is it because he didn't get his knighthood? Mr W. K. GOSS: As we all know, in the past it has been the tradition in many parts of this country and in this State to bestow a knighthood upon the Chief Justice of the courts of superior jurisdiction. The fact that that did not occur in December 1989 should not be seen—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. It is my understanding that, under the conventions of the Parliament, a judge can be subject to criticism only by a resolution of the House. Mr W. K. GOSS: Let me stress for the record that I would make no criticism—— Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. My first point of order was quite clear. Mr Speaker, there is a longstanding convention in this place—and I ask that you seek advice from the Clerk—that if there is to be criticism of a judge, particularly the Chief Justice, it must be by way of resolution of the House and not by way of personal attack and innuendo, as the Premier has just engaged in. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate the fact that a member may not insult the judiciary. I am listening to what the Premier is saying, and I will call him to order if I deem it criticism. Mr W. K. GOSS: What I was about to say, Mr Speaker, was that not only do I respect and support that convention but I want to stress that the change in Government led to a general change in policy and should be seen as no reflection on the Chief Justice or on any other individual. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I invite your attention to the words used by the Premier prior to the interjection of the Government Deputy Whip. Prior to the interjection, the Premier was quite clearly criticising the Chief Justice of Queensland for having taken the action to bring about publicity to matters that he could not raise with the Government. If that was not criticism, my ears just were not listening to what was being said. The Premier was clearly criticising the Chief Justice of Queensland. He was interrupted from continuing to do so by the member for Archerfield. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier said that it was unusual. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I refer you to the conventions as laid down in Erskine May and suggest, with the utmost respect, that the tactics being engaged in by the Premier amount to a total breach of the conventions of parliamentary democracy in their dealings with the judiciary. Mr KATTER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, could we have a ruling from you? Do you accept that as a convention and as part of the attitude that should be taken by this House at all times? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have already ruled on that. I call the Honourable the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: Last week, the Chief Justice wrote to me in relation to this matter. As a result of that, a meeting has been convened for next Wednesday between the Minister for Justice, the Attorney-General and me. As for the matters raised by the Opposition quite deliberately to try to drag the Government into controversy—they Legislative Assembly 8154 30 May 1991 are not relevant to this debate and this matter should not be seen as any personal or professional reflection on the Chief Justice or on any other member of the court. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I give notice that this House dissents from your ruling in respect of a personal attack on the Chief Justice of Queensland by the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: As I said before, let me give just one example of one of the problems in the administration of the courts—not in the exercise of judicial functions, I stress, but in the administration of the courts—that highlights the Government's concern. I am sure that it is also the concern of the Chief Justice. It is a concern that we share. It relates to the case of Foxley v. Proserpine Shire River Improvement Trust and others. I propose to refer briefly to a memorandum provided to me by the Minister for Justice. That memorandum, to the director-general from the deputy director-general, highlights the problem that ordinary Queenslanders are facing and that this Government wants to try to correct in cooperation with the Chief Justice and through the introduction of a system of case management. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: The honourable member is from north Queensland. He should be concerned about this. This matter involves a Supreme Court case in which an ordinary—— Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: This involves a Supreme Court case in which the lives of an average couple were crushed by a break-down in the system of administration of justice in this State. This matter involves a couple from north Queensland who were emotionally and financially crushed by that particular case. It is a delicate matter, so I will read only part of the memorandum. It refers to a report provided by the President of the Bar Association, Mr Crooke, in relation to this case. It states— "Basically, the circumstances of the case are that a writ was issued in 1980 in relation to events which go back to 1974. For a variety of reasons, the case dragged on. The plaintiffs had three firms of solicitors acting in the matter at different times. The point of concern is that the case was listed for trial on Monday, 19 November 1990 and this date was confirmed by Master White on Wednesday, 14 November 1990 . . . " It was listed 10 years after the writ was filed and 16 years after the events in question. On that day, Master White sought assurances from the parties that there was no impediment to the trial commencing on the following Monday. When the case came before the court on that following Monday, the parties were advised that the case could not proceed, because it might take longer than the three weeks that were allocated. It was indicated clearly by the parties that they were prepared to accept the three-week hearing and to come back the following year when the matter could be further heard when court time was available. They were there with all their counsel and their witnesses, and they had been waiting for 10 years. Mr Katter: Surely this proves what the Chief Justice said was correct. Mr W. K. GOSS: I ask the member to wait until he hears the rest of what I have to say. The parties said that they were prepared to take that three-week hearing. They were advised by the court that they would not get that three-week hearing. The parties were sent away, emotionally and financially crushed, and were forced to settle the case on very disadvantageous terms. As I said, I have read only parts of this document. Mr Harper: Selective extracts. Legislative Assembly 8155 30 May 1991

Mr W. K. GOSS: Yes, they are. The last paragraph of the document from the deputy director- general states— "It is easy to understand the dismay of the plaintiffs in this case who had waited ten years for a trial." There they were, with three weeks set aside, all the lawyers and witnesses were there, yet although three weeks were allocated for their case, the court turned them away. This Government will not tolerate a situation such as that. We wish to work together with the Supreme Court bench to correct those circumstances so that we do not see a repeat of a case similar to that of Foxlee v. The Proserpine Shire River Improvement Trust and Others. I hope that all honourable members would respect that this Government has a responsibility to the taxpayers of this State to properly and efficiently use taxpayers' funds and not to waste them. Let me end where I began: the Government is prepared to provide the extra resources if they are needed. We have asked for facts and figures in relation to the courts' workload. In the interim, we are prepared to appoint enough acting judges to clear the backlog so that an assessment can be made. Comments by Former Labor Party State Secretary, Mr T. Hampson on ALP Policies Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, I refer to comments by the former Labor Party State Secretary, Mr Terry Hampson, in last weekend's Sunday Mail to the effect that this Labor Government has lost its way in its pursuit of policies seeking the political middle ground. I ask: in view of this Government's broken policy on land rights and its failure to deliver the party's policy for abortion on demand, does the Minister now admit that Mr Hampson's comments were spot on? What action does the Minister intend to take to deliver promised ALP policies? Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not relevant to the Minister's portfolio. It is up to the Minister to decide whether or not she wishes to answer it. Ms WARNER: I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the responses that I will make this afternoon during the debate on land rights. Let me say that the question is a fairly sorry indication that the Leader of the Opposition has never taken part in any kind of reasonable debate on the issue of land rights, nor has he ever made any sense on the issue. Mr Cooper interjected. Ms WARNER: Does the Leader of the Opposition only want to talk, or does he want to hear my answer? Mr Cooper: Answer the question. Ms WARNER: I am answering the question. Why does the member not listen? Perhaps the reason he does not want to listen—— Mr Cooper: What are you going to do about your policies? Are you going to implement them, or not? Ms WARNER: Does the honourable member have to continue interjecting? If he wants to ask a question, he should do so. If he wants to hear an answer, he should listen. The Leader of the Opposition has never made any sense on the subject of land rights. As I said, so that he may learn about and understand this issue, I refer him to the debate that will occur today in this House. State Government Taxation Policies Mr PREST: I ask the Treasurer: can he reassure the House that, irrespective of the outcome of tomorrow's Premiers Conference, the Government will stand by its commitments on taxation? Legislative Assembly 8156 30 May 1991

Mr De LACY: This is an important issue. I note that, in this morning's press, the Premier of Tasmania has said that, if Tasmania does not get what it wants out of the Premiers Conference, it will be raising taxes. I am aware of some stirrings amongst Premiers throughout Australia to try to get some cooperation on the issue of raising taxes. I refer honourable members to last year's Premiers Conference, when Premiers throughout Australia got together and said, "Let's harmonise tax rates throughout Australia." What they really meant by "harmonise" was to increase tax rates throughout Australia to the highest level possible. The running was taken by Mr Nick Greiner, the Premier of New South Wales. I believe that the people of that State delivered to him a message that they do not want high taxes and that Governments must be able to deliver services in a more cost-efficient way. I give the honourable member an assurance that the Queensland Government will not be party to any plan to increase taxes. Mr Lester interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Peak Downs will cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: This Government will not be party to a plan to harmonise taxes throughout Australia to the highest rate possible. No petrol tax will be imposed by this Government. There will be no FID tax. This Government will not increase payroll tax to the levels that prevail in other States of Australia. Mr Lester interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Peak Downs under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: If I could understand what he was saying, I would answer him. I wish to make a general point about the Premiers Conference. It does not matter what deal Queensland gets from the Commonwealth, things will be tough this year. I would not like anybody to think that, if Queensland gets what it is asking for from the Commonwealth Government, it will be an easy Budget. Everybody knows that we are in a recession; that our own source revenue is down, as it is down throughout Australia; and that we are committed to a number of national benchmark salary decisions in respect of teachers, nurses—— Mr Stoneman: Police. Mr De LACY: And police. The full year's impact of those decisions will be substantial. Costs associated with the national disasters that plagued Queensland earlier this year are still being met. Last year, this Government undertook full-year commitments. It is going to be a very difficult year. However, the Goss Government has given an undertaking—and this has been widely accepted by the people of Queensland—that it will not increase taxes, and it will not be increasing taxes.However, what we will need to do—and this is very important—is to continue to deliver services in a more cost-effective way. That will not be easy to do, and I know that we will hear howls of outrage from the Opposition every time that we do it. However, when the Government does not have enough money to go around, it has only a couple of options. It can increase taxes, but that is out. We do not believe that that is the way to go. The Government can cut services or deliver them more efficiently. The Goss Government is committed to the more efficient delivery of services, and that is what can be expected from us. Land Rights Demonstration outside Parliament House Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services: is he aware of statements broadcast on the ABC television last night that police charged Aboriginal demonstrators in a confrontation at Parliament House, strongly implying that police action was unwarranted and unprovoked? Will he inform the House of the circumstances in which police apprehended and arrested a number of people who were involved in yesterday's demonstration? Legislative Assembly 8157 30 May 1991

Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I did see that report. I thought that to say that the police had charged the demonstrators outside Parliament House yesterday was sensationalism at its best. The only charges that were made concerned the 10 people who were arrested. Yesterday, I believed that some people went over the top when they destroyed the gate and the pillar that held up the gate outside Parliament House. As a result of that, I understand that the Speaker spoke to the police, who requested those people to remove themselves from the parliamentary precincts and pointed out that, if they did not do so, the police would arrest them. That is what happened. Yesterday, there was no charging in any sense by the police at any demonstrators or any people at Parliament House. I place on record my appreciation of the remarkable restraint that the police showed here last Thursday and once again yesterday. They acted in an excellent manner. It shows what can happen with people demonstrating and the police being there in a law-enforcing role and not in the role of being used as political tools, as they were in the past. I also point out that the police cannot tolerate people who break the law in the way that the law was broken yesterday. That applies not only in relation to that incident yesterday, but also in relation to any incidents that occur in Queensland. Police will allow people the democratic right to demonstrate, but they will not allow them to break the law. If they do, they will choose to do that and will face the consequences. Closure of Woodford Prison Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Premier: in view of his Government's decision to provide a compensation package for the people of Maryborough, what financial compensation does the Government plan to give the people of Woodford in light of the Government's decision to close down the Woodford prison without warning? Mr W. K. GOSS: There has been no consideration of that matter up to the present time. I understand that, in the near future, the local member will bring forward a deputation of people to discuss with the relevant Minister a range of the general issues associated with the matter. Those matters can be discussed there. I understand that the Minister is prepared to entertain any particular suggestions that the community may have. Ultimately, however, it must be understood that the prison system in this State is not run as an industry or an economic activity to prop up this community or that community. Although there may be some adverse consequences, I am sure that the people of Woodford and all of the people of Queensland expect this Government, in the area of prisons, to do two things. They expect us to follow through on the Kennedy reforms that were initiated by the previous Government and in respect of which substantial extra funding was provided to the prison system by the previous Government. That has been continued. At the same time, the people of Woodford and the people of Queensland would expect the Government to run the prison system as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. The facts are that there are a substantial number of vacancies in our prison system and we need to close one facility to save costs. I am advised by the Minister that we are looking at a saving of $8m. On any basis of assessment of that matter, we could not tolerate throwing away $8m of taxpayers' money on a prison that is not required. Industrial Relations (Protection from Invalidities) Bill Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: with regard to the Industrial Relations (Protection from Invalidities) Bill, will he inform the House whether assistance was sought by any major employer associations to validate any of their past operations? In the interests of stability of the State industrial system, is that request reflected within the Bill? Mr WARBURTON: Dealing with the last part of the question—on a number of occasions, I have made it clear that the object of the Bill is clearly to protect the integrity of the State industrial relations system. I say to the honourable member who asked the question that that certainly is reflected in the Bill. The next part of the question that I Legislative Assembly 8158 30 May 1991 intend to answer is very interesting indeed. With regard to our State's major employer organisations, namely, the Confederation of Industry and the Metal Trades Industry Association which is very much involved with the manufacturing sector in this State—representatives of those organisations consulted with senior officers of my department regarding their concerns over the position in which their organisations found themselves without the legislative protection that will be provided by the Act which will result from the Bill that was passed through the House last night. In other words, both of those major employer organisations are supportive of the Government's actions and they would not be supportive if the matters raised by members of the Opposition were true. In fact, the story gets better, because I am personally aware that Mr Clive Bubb of the Confederation of Industry held discussions about the proposed legislation with members from both the National Party and Liberal Party. I have no concerns about it, but it was done without any reference to me. I know that he went to great lengths to show how essential that legislation is for the protection of our State industrial system, which is so important to this State's future economy. I know that he briefed Mr Santoro. He certainly spoke to Mr Beanland and Mr Harper. Whether or not those people breached that confidentiality—— Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. I find the imputation made by the Honourable Minister personally offensive. There was no question of confidentiality or breach of confidentiality. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Mr WARBURTON: I said "if" there was a breach of confidentiality. Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will withdraw it. Mr WARBURTON: I will withdraw it. I simply say that I will leave it to Mr Bubb, his confederation and the honourable members concerned. Lastly, I doubt if there will ever be another confidential briefing of either the National Party or the Liberal Party after their performance last night and again this morning. Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is obviously endeavouring to put pressure on other organisations to stop them talking to members of the National Party. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order at all. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Lockyer under Standing Order 123A and I now ask him to leave the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Lockyer withdrew from the Chamber. Mr WARBURTON: All I am saying to honourable members opposite is that certain organisations that play a major part in the economy of this State are absolute disgusted with the attitude that they displayed last night. Mr SPEAKER: I suggest the Minister sums up his answer. Mr WARBURTON: In conclusion, I know—because I was told this morning by the people concerned—that, as a result of what they see as blatant misrepresentation of the real facts of this issue, Mr Bubb of the confederation will be issuing a major media release today about the whole matter. It will certainly make interesting reading. I think perhaps the Metal Trades Industry Association and other major employer organisations will do the same. Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the Minister for his most erudite answer. Opposition members interjected. Legislative Assembly 8159 30 May 1991

Mr PALASZCZUK: If Opposition members had not been on strike last night, they would have heard the answer as well. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A for interjecting whilst I am on my feet. Closure of Country Hospitals Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Health: will he inform the House of the accuracy or otherwise of rumours concerning the closure of country hospitals being circulated in many parts of rural Queensland by members of the Opposition ? Mr McELLIGOTT: I certainly endorse the honourable member's comment. It is a sad indictment of members opposite that they would stoop so low as to spread fear and concern in their electorates by suggesting that there will be some sort of downgrading in the level of health services in their electorates. I have already spoken in this place about the shocking and irresponsible behaviour of the member for Callide in respect of the Cairns Hospital and in the last several days I have heard similar stories coming out of Gympie and Kilcoy. Today, I want to give an example of what I regard as the most irresponsible piece of journalism and the most irresponsible action on the part of a member of this Assembly that I have encountered during my time in this House. A headline in the Goondiwindi Argus states "Hospital services slashed!" Members would agree that the good people of Goondiwindi and district are entitled to have some fears and concerns having read such a headline in their local publication. They are also entitled to believe that some sort of decision has been made by the Government or by me as Minister to actually reduce services at their local hospital. When one reads the text of this article, the source of this outlandish statement is the infantile member for Carnarvon. If one reads further, the article uses the words "could" and "may". Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister withdraws the phrase about the member for Carnarvon being infantile. Mr McELLIGOTT: I withdraw the reference to the honourable member's age and go on to say that if one reads the article, one realises that it is comprised entirely of false rumour and the word "could" is used throughout. For example, the article states— "Regional hospitals such as Dirranbandi, Texas, and Mungindi could close. . . . Goondiwindi's Flying Surgeon and Flying Gynaecologist could also be at risk under the new regime. Health services must be considered in crisis . . . " The article further states— "In Goondiwindi options include . . . sacking some domestic staff. Services, including the preparation of meals and the supply of food would be imported while laundry, for example, may be sent to Toowoomba." Mr SPEAKER: Order! The members for Southport and Archerfield will cease talking to each other. Mr McELLIGOTT: There is no truth in any of these allegations, and the honourable member stands condemned. I must say in his defence, and given his age and relative inexperience in this Parliament, that it is understandable that he would cast around for an example to follow. It is a great tragedy that he has obviously chosen the example of Legislative Assembly 8160 30 May 1991 the member for Flinders, who, as all honourable members would know, has spread lies and untruths about railway positions throughout the State. The member for Carnarvon is doing exactly the same in relation to hospital services in his electorate. Unfortunately, other members opposite are following his lead. It is disgusting, and it is a disgrace. Premier's Comments on Chief Justice Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to his unprecedented attack on the Chief Justice of Queensland this morning, which was prompted by an interjection made by the member for Archerfield. I ask: will he now do the decent thing and apologise on behalf of himself and his colleagues for any inference or any attack that may be implied on the Chief Justice of Queensland? Mr W. K. GOSS: For the record, let me state again what I said before; that is, there was no personal reflection on the Chief Justice. I made it plain that any change in Government policy in respect of imperial honours is a question of Government policy generally and should not be seen as a reflection on the Chief Justice. I object in the most strenuous terms to the assertion made by the member for Surfers Paradise to the effect that there has been a personal attack made on the Chief Justice. There is a serious problem in the administration of the courts in this State. I have given a public commitment to work with the Chief Justice and the courts' administrators to improve the situation and provide the resources that are necessary. Ultimately, permanent resources will be provided, but, in the interim, until the backlog is cleared, acting justices will be appointed. In addition, the Government will provide a professional court administrator as an extra resource to assist the Chief Justice and the courts to overcome administrative problems that are quite clear. I refer again to one paragraph of the memorandum I mentioned earlier, which states— "The point of concern is that this case was listed for trial on Monday, 19 November 1990 . . . " This case is 10 years old. The date was confirmed by a master of the Supreme Court five days prior, on 14 November. It was confirmed by the court, and the master of the Supreme Court sought assurances from the parties that there was no impediment to their trial commencing the following Monday. They all turned up, but the court turned them away. I again quote from the deputy director-general, who stated— "It is easy to understand the dismay of the plaintiffs in this case . . . " Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is really engaging in tedious repetition. He gave the Parliament all this information earlier in question-time. We are now getting a repeat of that information. We are not getting an answer to my question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Premier. Mr W. K. GOSS: It is just repetitive; it is not tedious. One is compelled to repeat matters two or three times in this Parliament before the honourable member actually gets the message. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to the Premier that twice is enough. Mr W. K. GOSS: Twice is enough. In conclusion, in relation to that aspect of the courts' administration, I say that this Government is committed to the proper functioning of the Supreme Court as an important institution in this State. It does not just have this Government's support in terms of the provision of resources and a preparedness to provide extra resources, but it also has our respect. We respect the principle of the separation of powers between the Executive, the court and the Parliament, and we will not intrude on the exercise of judicial functions or judicial independence. As to the extent that I am dismayed by any public statements that have been made, I point out that I am simply reflecting a well-known convention—well known and understood in this Parliament and by the bench. Legislative Assembly 8161 30 May 1991

Mr BORBIDGE: It would be interesting if the Premier repeated the comments about the Chief Justice outside Parliament. Validation of Illegal Union Action Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: will he give an unequivocal assurance that legislation introduced by him and passed in this Parliament last night will not be used to validate any illegal action which may arise out of the recommendations of Marshall Cooke, QC—"Yes" or "No"? Mr Palaszczuk: You weren't here last night, were you? Mr WARBURTON: I was going to say that the great shame is that the honourable member decided last night to leave this House and shirk his responsibility in respect of a debate on a very, very important industrial issue. As I indicated previously, that legislation is very important to the protection of the State industrial system and the economy of this State. If the honourable member wants to shirk his responsibility—— Mr Cooper: Answer the question—"Yes" or "No". Mr WARBURTON: —along with the Leader of the Opposition, who also shirked his responsibilities last night, perhaps I should say why they left. Last night, they left because they could not understand what it was all about. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The question was specifically worded so that even the Minister could say "Yes" or "No". He is now going into a debate that took place last night. I challenge him to answer "Yes" or "No". That is all we want to know. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr WARBURTON: I will conclude by saying that if the honourable member and the Leader of the Opposition, who also shirked his responsibility, had stayed in the House last night, as they were elected to do, they would have heard the answer to the question that has just been asked by the member for Surfers Paradise. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr Cooper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Surfers Paradise. I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A. I now ask him to leave the Chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Surfers Paradise withdrew from the Chamber. Private Enterprise Take-over of TAFE Hospitality Training Facility, Rosslyn Bay Mr PEARCE: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, I point out that the TAFE hospitality training facility established by the previous Government at Rosslyn Bay on the Capricorn Coast has recently been taken over by private enterprise. I ask: will he advise the House of the reasons why the take-over was supported by his department? What will this mean to students living on the Capricorn Coast who want to be trained to work in the hospitality industry? Mr WARBURTON: The Rosslyn Bay TAFE facility came into existence as the result of a March 1989 Cabinet decision—that might bring back memories for some people--which made available a special allocation of $200,000 for the leasing of facilities and the purchase of equipment for a TAFE facility. The Cabinet decision resulted from Legislative Assembly 8162 30 May 1991 an oral submission by the then Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, Mr Lester, at the March 1989 country Cabinet meeting. In 1990, I instructed my bureau to carry out a thorough examination of the viability of all the existing and proposed external campuses. Because of financial losses incurred, the Rosslyn Bay facility was found not to meet the criteria of an efficient operation that would be expected by the public. The amount of capital sunk in the project to date and forecast to be lost if the campus is maintained at present standards is in the vicinity of $300,000. That money will be more effectively utilised in the existing TAFE structure. Let me conclude by saying that the facility has consistently run at a substantial financial loss. Obviously, not enough thought was given to the facility when it was first established, but that is another story. The Rockhampton college of TAFE will be able to service the same offerings with a far greater emphasis on live work training essential to the tourism and hospitality courses. Now that the people of the honourable member's electorate understand the true position, I am sure that they will accept that this was inevitable. Supreme Court Mr LITTLEPROUD: In directing a question to the Attorney-General, I refer to a proposal by the Government to merge the Supreme Court and the District Court. I note that judges of the Supreme Court are reported to have rejected such a system. I ask: how can he, as the first law officer of the State, justify unwarranted Government interference in the court system, as has been suggested by Supreme Court judges? How can he justify the disintegration of the Supreme Court, a move that would destroy the traditional system of British justice and diminish civil liberties? Mr WELLS: Pursuant to the Fitzgerald report, a division was established between the functions of the Minister for Justice and those of the Attorney-General. That division has been in place since the beginning of this Parliament. Under that division, the Minister for Justice has had responsibility for the administration of the courts. I do not usually retail wild rumours in the Parliament, but I heard a wild rumour—I do not know if there is anything in it—that the honourable member for Condamine was in fact the shadow Attorney-General. If that is so, it is surprising that he does not know what the job of the Attorney-General is and that it does not involve the administration of the courts and, therefore, does not relate to most of the question that he just asked. Mr Littleproud: You should have concerns as the first law officer of the State. Mr WELLS: As the first law officer of the State, I have serious concerns about the honourable member for Condamine, since he has absolutely no grasp of the job that he is supposed to be shadowing. For the benefit of the honourable member for Condamine, I point out that, this year, a review carried out by the Public Sector Management Commission of the Department of Justice and the Department of the Attorney-General confirmed the separation and the proposition that the Minister for Justice would be solely responsible for the administration of the courts. I refer now to the honourable member's comments about the separation of powers. I point out to the honourable member that the doctrine of the separation of powers refers to judges acting judicially; it does not refer to the question of the administration of courts, which is governed by an Act of this Parliament which is administered by the Minister for Justice. The honourable member for Condamine cannot grasp that difference. I do not know how the law is expounded on the banks of the Condamine and I do not know whether the honourable member's constituents would all subscribe to the doctrines espoused by the honourable member, but I think that is very unlikely. The honourable member for Condamine ought to go back to his constituents and say to them, "Look, I don't understand this doctrine of the separation of powers any more than the former Premier Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen understood it." He should say, "I don't understand this doctrine and I am not competent to be speaking on the subjects that I am speaking on." He should try to grasp who does what, who administers what Acts and what the doctrines are for which he is supposed to be responsible before he stands up in this Legislative Assembly 8163 30 May 1991

House and makes a donkey of himself by mouthing off about things that he does not understand. Interference in Cooke Inquiry by Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations Mr LITTLEPROUD: I direct a further question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as the first law officer of the State. I remind him that the Minister for Employment is apparently the only Minister who has access to the unabridged reports written by Commissioner Cooke, reports that recommend that some union officials and prominent members of the ALP should be charged with criminal offences. He then, in that privileged position, introduced a Bill into Parliament that has the capacity to protect those union officials and ALP members from prosecution. I ask: does the Attorney-General have concerns that the Minister for Employment has breached the proper conduct expected of a Minister of the Crown? As first law officer, will he intercede? Mr WELLS: The answer to the question is "No". The unabridged reports to which the honourable member refers relate to documents that were provided to the Director of Prosecutions subject to the advice of the Solicitor-General, which was based on a High Court decision which said that in these circumstances specific recommendations relating to matters which need to be investigated, or which are recommended to be investigated by the Director of Prosecutions, should not be made public and should not be published in a public report but should be placed separately before the Director of Prosecutions. If the honourable member opposite had the faintest grasp of what he was doing, he would understand that in these matters the Government acts on the advice of the Solicitor-General and that the Solicitor-General is acting pursuant to a High Court decision. The honourable member is a long, long way from the mark. I repeat that the answer to the honourable member's question is "No". Construction of Mangrove Boardwalk at Wynnum Mr ELDER: I ask the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services: is he aware of the involvement of community service workers in the construction of a mangrove boardwalk in the Wynnum area? If so, can he inform the House about the project? Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourable member for Manly for the question. He is very concerned about that area. Likewise, the Deputy Premier, the member for Lytton, Mr Burns, has been a very strong advocate for the bay area and the Wynnum area, in particular the foreshore. Of course, some problems have been experienced in regard to—— Mr Gibbs: "Burns' Walk". Mr MILLINER: The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing says that the boardwalk should be called "Burns' Walk". As I understand it, the boardwalk is being opened on Saturday by the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I do not know what name he has chosen for the boardwalk, but "Burns' Walk" is not a bad name. The member for Lytton has been very active in pursuing this boardwalk in the Wynnum foreshore area to protect the mangroves. In Opposition, he undertook to do something about it. When Labor won Government, he pursued that project and got community service order people working down there. They did a magnificent job. In some cases, in order to work around the tides, they were starting at 6 o'clock in the morning. Those workers have done a tremendous job. In addition to constructing that boardwalk, corrective services people have been actively engaged in helping to restore St Helena Island. There again, they have done a tremendous job in restoring part of our heritage. Community service orders are playing a very valuable role for this State in a number of areas. People who have gone before the courts for punishment have received a community service order so that they paid their debt to society. In addition to that debt being paid to society, the community benefits from the projects in which they are Legislative Assembly 8164 30 May 1991 involved, such as the Wynnum boardwalk. Last week, I answered a question regarding community service orders and their value to the community. When one puts a dollar value on the work being done by community service order workers, one finds that it runs into many millions of dollars. One only needs to look around the community to see work being done at schools and in other public areas. The work that is being undertaken is of tremendous benefit to the community. Obviously, the Corrective Services Commission has a policy of ensuring that non-violent offenders serve their sentences in the community—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. PRIVILEGE Interjection by Member for Archerfield about Chief Justice Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.26 a.m.): My matter of privilege is that during question-time, honourable members heard the member for Archerfield, by way of an interjection, make a clear reflection on the Chief Justice of this State. I therefore move— "That the clear reflection on the Chief Justice of Queensland by way of an interjection by the honourable member for Archerfield, Mr Palaszczuk, be referred to the Privileges Committee." I have moved that motion because there has been no apology or withdrawal of that interjection. I think that it is a very serious matter. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is not allowed to debate the motion. Question—That the matter referred to by Mr Beanland be referred to the Privileges Committee—put; and the House divided— AYES, 31 NOES, 48 Resolved in the negative. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (11.33 a.m.), by leave: The claims and inferences made against me by the Honourable the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations during question- time this morning suggest that I have breached the confidentiality of information provided to me by Mr Clive Bubb of the Queensland Confederation Legislative Assembly 8165 30 May 1991 of Industry. I have no intention of disclosing any facts of the short telephone conversation which I had with Mr Bubb, but I desire to place on record that nothing of that conversation adverse to the interests of the Queensland Confederation of Industry was, or will be, disclosed by me either in debate or elsewhere. PRIVILEGE Withdrawal of Interjection Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (11.34 a.m.): I was unaware of the convention that a member cannot criticise a judge other than by substantive motion. Now that it has been drawn to my attention, I accept that the interjection was not in accordance with Standing Orders and I ask that the interjection be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Standing Orders, just a convention, but I will accept the withdrawal of that interjection. ABORIGINAL LAND BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 May (see p. 7776). Mr SLACK (Burnett) (11.35 a.m.): I rise to debate what the Minister has pointed out to this Chamber is a very complex and sensitive piece of legislation that has a background of dissension and confusion. The position is that in this Parliament quite some time ago the Premier indicated that there would be a long and involved consultative process prior to the introduction of the legislation that we are debating today, and that its introduction would be towards the end of this year. Yet, suddenly, we have the legislation before us today. When I say "suddenly"—the Minister delivered her second-reading speech at 1 o'clock in the morning a little over a week ago. If the debate had been brought on yesterday afternoon, that would have been not quite a week since the Bill was introduced. The Bill's introduction was clouded by an air of dissension. We have had marches out in the street. We have had illegal behaviour on the part of people, which the Opposition cannot condone, and we attempted to move in this House yesterday that that illegal behaviour be condemned and deplored. The legislation is now being debated by this House, which is where the expectations of the Aboriginal community and Islander people have been raised by the actions and words of the Premier. At the beginning, I would like to read to the House a letter which is addressed to "The Honourable W. K. Goss, LLB, MLA." It states— "We are writing to express our grave concerns at the way in which your government has handled the question of land rights for Queensland Aborigines. On 19th February 1991 at the Dispute Resolution Conference in Brisbane you gave the following advice to a group of Aboriginal elders: '. . . go back and talk among yourselves and work out what you want. Tell us how it would work in practice. Don't come here and ask me, a whiteman, to draw it up because you will turn around and accuse me of imposing a whiteman's solution. I'm not going to do that. If you want changes you tell me what changes. We have land rights in Queensland now. It's called the Deed of Grant in Trust. It doesn't work'." That letter is signed by several people, the names of whom the Minister may be interested to hear. They include Senator Cheryl Kernot, Judith Wright, Judith Durham, Judge Marcus Einfeld, Senator Margaret Reynolds, Senator J. Powell, Dr Nugget Coombs, Dr Noel Preston and Professor H. Reynolds. This legislation is a mess. It does not have the support of the Opposition or of the people who are supposed to benefit from it. This legislation is being put before us by the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Why is the Premier not in the House? Legislative Assembly 8166 30 May 1991

As he has had so much input into the formulation of the legislation, why is he not putting it forward? Or was it Kevin Rudd of the Cabinet Office who had input into the legislation? In her second-reading speech, the Minister stated that this is a very sensitive and complex piece of legislation. In the light of that, I was very surprised to hear her say on the 7.30 Report, in response to a question from the interviewer, that the legislation before the House is not the last word in legislation and not the last word on land rights. Surely we have the right to ask: is this the Government's policy? Is this the Minister's policy? Or is the policy to be determined at the annual conference of the ALP next week? Why is the legislation being rushed through this House? In her reply, I ask the Minister to explain what she meant when she said that this is not the last word in legislation and not the last word on land rights. Ms Warner: It is not. Mr SLACK: That is the statement that has been made. The Minister has indicated that it is not the last word. However, this legislation has been rushed into the House. If it is not the last word on land rights, why was it rushed into the House? I can see the Minister protesting. If it is not the last word, I want to refer to a question that I asked the Premier on Tuesday, 28 May, in relation to consultancy fees, to whom they were paid and the costs that were involved. One part of the Premier's answer was interesting. In the document that was incorporated in Hansard, he said— "Records indicate that staff worked late on 33 nights and on 7 Saturdays and 4 Sundays. On a number of occasions work did not finish until 2 a.m. and several weekends involved work from 9 a.m. to past midnight on both Saturday and Sunday. Estimates based on Departmental records and staff diaries indicate that there were at least 198 occasions on which individual staff worked beyond normal work hours on weekends." Yet the Minister tries to tell me that this legislation was not rushed. Obviously, that would indicate to any sane, sensible person that there was some reason why this legislation had to be introduced into the House in this session, debated and passed. What are those reasons? Ms Warner: You have got an unnecessarily conspiratorial mind. Mr SLACK: The Minister said that I have an unnecessarily conspiratorial mind. The Premier said— "Records indicate that staff worked late on 33 nights and on 7 Saturdays and 4 Sundays. On a number of occasions work did not finish until 2 a.m. and several weekends involved work from 9 a.m. to past midnight on both Saturday and Sunday." I have a conspiratorial mind? The Premier said that there were "198 occasions on which individual staff worked beyond normal work hours on weekends". Yet the Minister says that I have a conspiratorial mind. The Premier gave an undertaking to this House and to the Aboriginal and Islander people that this legislation would not be introduced until the end of this year. He gave an undertaking that he and the Minister would consult. The Minister has a copy of the letter from which I have just read and which stated— ". . . go back and talk among yourselves and work out what you want." The Aboriginal and Islander people were told that the consultative process would finish on 10 May. The letter stated that they did not need to go any further, that the Government had made up its mind. Is it any wonder that the Aboriginal and Islander people are upset? Is it any wonder that many of them are marching? Not for one minute do I condone any of the lawlessness that has occurred. But it is very unfair of the Premier to try to distance himself from any responsibility for those marches. The Premier said to the Aboriginal and Islander people that they could put their case and that the Government would listen to it. I ask the Minister: has she listened? I do not necessarily Legislative Assembly 8167 30 May 1991 believe that she supports this legislation. She is supporting it under protest. She is the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Responsibility for this matter was taken out of her hands and given to Kevin Rudd of the Cabinet Office. Before the House today is a compromise which means virtually nothing. It provides for little advance on what already exists in relation to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. The Opposition is not disagreeing with that, but—— Ms Warner: You are supporting it. Mr SLACK: No, we in the Opposition are not supporting it. I make no pretence of supporting it. We are not perpetrating a fraud, as the Premier has perpetrated a fraud in his approach to this legislation. I firmly believe that the reason for the rush is that, at the ALP conference next week, there will be a bloodbath of ALP policy relative to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. This legislation negates the policy that the Labor Party took to the Aboriginal people before the last election and by which it gained their support. The Minister and her Government are to be condemned for that approach. The legislation before us is merely a shameful attempt to honour commitments that were given by the Minister, the Premier and, incidentally, the honourable member for Yeronga, who will follow me in this debate. I will be keen to see if he can explain what has come out of his Government's policies in this legislation. As I said, it is a shameful attempt to honour commitments that they and many other Government members gave to Aboriginal and Islander people before they were elected to Government. The Opposition sees this legislation as nothing but a clever sleight of hand. It is a con job and a farce. Really, it amounts to tokenism. Consequently, the Opposition will not be supporting the legislation. In saying that, the Opposition does not pretend to agree with or attempt to mislead Aboriginal and Islander people into believing that it supports extensive land claims legislation, other than to correct what it sees as some inadequacies in the original DOGIT legislation. At least everyone knows where the Opposition stands on many of the issues before the House today. People do not know where the Minister stands. This is not the last word in legislation or on land rights. Why could the Minister not come up with the last word in a carefully prepared document that could be delivered before the end of the year, as the Minister promised? The Opposition has never pretended to be half-smart and clever by introducing measures which, in the best of terms, can be described only as Claytons land rights. The Government speaks of giving control to the Aboriginal and Islander people, but, in effect, it retains control. It gazettes the vacant Crown land that is available for application to the tribunal. The Minister appoints the trustees to oversee and manage the land. They are not elected representatives of the Aboriginal and Islander people. The Governor in Council appoints the tribunal. The Minister in charge of national parks and wildlife and his department determine the management plan for national parks. I ask the Minister to explain whether the Minister in charge of national parks or the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is responsible for that management plan. That section appears to me to be ambiguous. The relevant Minister then appoints the management committee. The mining royalties that come back to Aboriginal and Islander people are determined and controlled by the Government. They are in name only, because that money can easily be offset somewhere else. The allocation of the talked-about 1.16 per cent vacant Crown land is a farce. Even if it were granted in total—and surely land that is now vacant in the State must be of little commercial value, otherwise it would not be vacant—the Government will not incur the wrath of the voters by offering land in towns or cities. What is the meaning of allowing for claims to be made on national parks and then, if granted, requiring the new owners immediately to lease the land back in perpetuity at a peppercorn rental to the National Parks and Wildlife Service? The Government has the hide to prepare a paper to explain to the Aboriginal and Islander people how well they are doing. It is no wonder that the Minister or the Premier did not wish to go out last week and confront the marchers. The whole thing is a joke. Mr Dollin: Can we hear your policy? Legislative Assembly 8168 30 May 1991

Mr SLACK: I am not ashamed of my policy. I am prepared to spell it out quite clearly. Even the use of the term "inalienable freehold title" rings hollow. In the Oxford Dictionary, "inalienable" is described as "not able to be taken away". Yet, under this legislation, land can be resumed—no veto on mining, etc. The Opposition does not dispute that, but Government members should hang their heads in shame over the hypocrisy of this legislation. It is little more than the DOGIT legislation over which the Labor Party, when in Opposition, was so quick to condemn the former National Party Government. At least we were honest about it. Our opponents were quick to condemn us over that legislation, which introduced deeds of grant in trust. That pioneering legislation was to prove to be a significant step forward by the National Party in recognising the special problems that confronted Aborigines and Islander people. A little under two million hectares were transferred into this title. That is not all the land that was available to Aboriginal and Islander people. The title refers to deeds of grant in trust "in fee simple". That title is just as inalienable as what this legislation proposes. Substantial areas of land throughout the State where Aboriginal and/or Islander communities had been established were always to be there for those people of Aboriginal or Islander descent who wished to reside within those communities. As many people would have us believe, the tenure is not leasehold. Those people were given self-management and control in the form of a community council system that is similar to our local authorities. In fact, greater powers and control were vested in the elected community council than in non-community shire and town councils. But what is this Government about to do? Will it remove the elected representatives as the trustees and replace them with non-elected trust members who are appointed by the Minister? If this Government is giving land but keeping control, that is not giving land at all. Talk about paternalism on the part of the National Party! What will the Aboriginal people get? People who are responsible to and beholden to the Minister. People who do not even live in the area could be appointed. Ms Warner: No. Mr SLACK: The Minister says not, but this legislation makes it possible for that to happen. The Minister may protest otherwise, but what she is really saying is, "Trust me. I will consult." The Aboriginal and Islander people trusted the Labor Party. The Aboriginal people have seen an example of that consultative process. The Minister and her Government, which previously took the high ground, are certainly not about to give away control. In fact, they seek more control than did the National Party. My understanding is that the Aboriginal Consultative Council emphatically opposed this aspect, but that view was disregarded. All that this will do is leave the way open for little pressure groups to lobby the Minister. I wish her well in sorting out all the problems that will evolve from this proposal. It is hard to understand the logic behind this move when an existing structure has already been accepted by the Aboriginal people, and the clan influence was gradually being set aside. People were electing the people whom they wanted. Is the Minister saying that she does not trust the Aboriginal people to elect their own representatives? All that this will do is throw those communities into total confusion and cause unnecessary division and resentment within them. It is obvious that this legislation is more restrictive than that proposed by the National Party. In effect, it actually takes the control away from local communities. Mr Foley: That's a bit rich. Mr SLACK: The member for Yeronga can use all the legal jargon that he likes. He will have an opportunity to explain his point. The fact remains that this is a sham. Representatives from the Aboriginal Consultative Council have expressed to me exactly the opinions that I am expressing now. The National Party was criticised for not granting timber and quarrying rights, but this Government is not about to grant them, either, except in deeds of grant in trust areas where the National Party had already agreed to do so. I am not denying that there have been problems and that there will continue to be problems. Legislative Assembly 8169 30 May 1991

As honourable members are aware, the Public Accounts Committee has made a detailed and thorough investigation of community councils. I commend the work done by the chairman and his team and concur entirely with the findings of that committee. It recognised the cultural difference that existed between whites and blacks, and the report was objective in its approach to coming to terms with the basic disadvantages that that cultural difference imposed on Aboriginal and Islander people living within a twentieth century white society. However, I do not condone the taking away of the ability of Aboriginal and Islander people to elect their own representatives to the position of trustee. I turn now to the question of land rights itself. In doing so, I refer to a recent Canadian court judgment, which dismissed the whole legal basis of land claims. From the judgment, which ran to almost 400 pages, several points can be made. The first is that it was not an issue that the original European settlers in north America behaved badly. It is simply not possible to go back and reverse all of the wrongs that occurred in the long history of the world during the settlement and/or conquest of north America, Australia and other areas. Interestingly, after hearing the lengthy testimony of hereditary chiefs as to the basis of their claims for title to the land and taking into account the oral history, the judge dismissed much of that oral history as fiction. That raises two questions in relation to the legislation before the House. One is that the Opposition does not believe that we should inherit guilt for the actions of our forebears, nor do we believe that we should be overly responsible for the cultural trait inherent in many Aborigines—I repeat "many Aborigines", not all—such as their lack of desire for and appreciation of material things or their inability to plan for the future. Secondly, the Opposition sees the role of the tribunal as a costly bureaucratic exercise purely to sort out the different applications from various Aboriginal and Islander groups for the gazetted vacant Crown land and the national park land. To us, the Canadian judge's decision merely establishes that American Indians, Aboriginal people, whites and politicians—including the member for Brisbane Central—are no different, as they will all be prone to fiction if it means personal gain or a gain for their people. The Minister and anyone who believes otherwise are extremely naive. I am mindful of the words that an elderly Aboriginal councillor from one of the communities used when I asked him about land rights. I quote as well as I can recollect— "This is now my home. I don't wish to leave here. I don't even know where my traditional land is." However, he went on to indicate that he would like to get some land added to his community. That was a consistent response to my question. Right throughout the communities, I asked the question of the people to whom I spoke on a one-to-one basis. The other response was that land rights was not really the issue; rather, the issue was the effect of alcoholism on their people. The Opposition does not accept section 8 of the Preamble and will not be party to the expression by the Parliament of being satisfied that Aboriginal interests and responsibilities in relation to land have not been adequately and appropriately recognised by the law and that that has contributed to a general failure of previous policies in relation to Aboriginal people. In fact, we reject the whole Preamble and the necessity for it. Will the Minister explain to the House the reason for its inclusion and assure the Parliament that it does not have any legal implications? If it does, it should have been clearly spelt out to the electorate before the election was held. With reference to section 8 of the Preamble—we see it more as a situation in which many of the present generation of Aboriginal and Islander people are in a cultural void. They appear to have lost their tribal codes and disciplines but still retain the cultural differences that make it so difficult for them to compete within modern twentieth century Australia. If one can imagine it, it would be as if a race from outer space, whose technology was 1 000 years ahead of ours and who outnumbered us by 50 to 1, landed and took over. How would we cope? Maybe, for many of us, the bottle would not be a bad way to go. Legislative Assembly 8170 30 May 1991

It must be accepted also that most of the Aboriginal people, or the descendants, are mainly of mixed blood, are now urbanised and, although they may dream about it, would have little desire to return to their traditional land or life-style, even if they did know where it was. It reminds me of the time many years ago in New York when I hired a cab with a negro driver. I asked him if he felt that he was a second-rate citizen. His answer was, "Sure, I'm a second-rate citizen, but they can have that 'going back to Ghana' stunt." It is neither practical nor realistic to believe that we can turn back the clock. We are in the twentieth century and we are all faced with the pressures that evolve from that. Many Aborigines are coping and are a credit to their race, because it is extremely difficult to get up from an underprivileged, deprived background and it is even more difficult if one is black. However, the Opposition does not believe that we do anybody a favour by simply giving. We do not believe that the problems that Aboriginal people face can be solved simply by giving money or land. Where does it stop? We will not satisfy many of the activists. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Mount Isa wishes to interject, he shall do so from his correct seat. He will cease interjecting. Mr SLACK: In the Northern Territory, already 34 per cent of the territory is controlled by Aborigines and a further 30 per cent to 40 per cent, at least, is under claim. I ask: has it solved any of the problems? Recently, in an editorial in a major newspaper in the Northern Territory, the observation was made that, by the year 2000, 70 per cent of the land mass of the Northern Territory would be under the control of 22 per cent of the population. Already in Queensland, we see reaction and resentment on the part of many people, particularly those who are struggling, who see benefits available to Aboriginal children that are not available to their children—benefits that they believe their children would use and that are sometimes squandered by Aboriginal children, or that they see as being squandered by Aboriginal children. If we attempt to set Aboriginal people further apart from other sections of the community, those divisions that are already present will only increase and it will be the Aboriginal people who will suffer. That also raises the question of division between the Aboriginal people themselves. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SLACK: As I mentioned, there are those people in the community—and the number is increasing—who have worked hard, been responsible and achieved. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Archerfield will withdraw that interjection. It is unparliamentary. Mr PALASZCZUK: I withdraw. Mr SLACK: How do honourable members think those people feel when they see other Aborigines who have never worked in their lives continually getting hand-outs and bringing the whole race into disrepute? The member for Brisbane Central need not shake his head, because they have rung and talked to me. It is a fact. Many Aborigines dissociated themselves from the people involved in the march the other day. They support the reasons for the march, but they disown many of the people involved in the march and dissociate themselves from their behaviour. I do not believe that Aboriginal people as a whole want hand-outs and many are ashamed of their people's reliance on hand-outs. Consequently, if any valid justification could be advanced for additional land, it could be in relation to that one issue—the need for Aboriginal people to have an economic base from which they could become self-sufficient. They have often expressed to me the need for the provision of greater employment opportunities within their communities. This Government made all sorts of promises, but this Bill does not address that issue. No wonder the Aboriginal people feel betrayed by it. The Opposition firmly believes that Aboriginal and Islander people are entitled to employment, education, health, housing and the opportunity to compete equally within Legislative Assembly 8171 30 May 1991 the community. We need appropriate policies to help Aboriginal and Islander people gain self-esteem and hope. I do not believe that this legislation provides a desirable way to achieve that aim. In a practical sense it is extremely difficult to determine who is entitled to what. This applies particularly to the argument as to who actually is an Aborigine. The accepted definition of an Aboriginal person appears to be someone who claims to be Aboriginal and who is accepted as being Aboriginal by the Aboriginal community itself. I ask: is this definition adequate? Surely a person carrying one-eighth or one-quarter Aboriginal blood cannot be described as an Aboriginal person who has close cultural links to the Aboriginal people. Then there is the question of need. I note that the report handed down by the Public Works Committee makes the recommendation that the Aboriginal rental housing program be administered in such a way as to ensure that priority is given to those with the greatest need. This is contained in recommendation 16. Whilst on the subject of need—it is becoming fashionable to be an Aboriginal person. If one looks at the census figures, one finds that between the 1981 and 1986 census collections, Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander populations increased by 37.1 per cent, that is from 44 698 to 61 268 people, and the Brisbane statistical division recorded an increase of 66.9 per cent. In comparison, New South Wales had an increase of 66.9 per cent and the Sydney division registered an 84.9 per cent increase. Obviously, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who claim to be of Aboriginal and Islander descent. It also indicates that Queensland Aborigines are substantially an urban group and reinforces my argument that individual Aborigines do not really want to go back to their communities or their traditional ways. Having said all that, the Opposition believes that there are some positives attached to the legislation and there are some provisions that we support. The legislation before the House allows for timber and quarrying rights in the DOGIT areas. It also rectifies a failing in relation to the transfer of leases within DOGIT areas. The Opposition supports this and, as previously indicated, the National Party was moving to correct those anomalies. We accept that that should have been done. We also approve of the Government's decision to hand over areas of land previously held for Aboriginal people by the Department of Community Services. This would have been done by the former National Party Government; however, we had problems finding a suitable title for the land in question, in particular a title that would allow for some flexibility of usage. Does one place the land in a position where it cannot be mortgaged or sold? If this is done, in many ways it precludes the development of the block for commercial purposes. It will not and does not place the full responsibility for the control of the land in the hands of the people, because, in order to gain true commercial experience, they must accept the consequences of having made a bad decision. Associated with this is the question: will the construction of buildings on this land be subject to local authority control and will local authority rates be paid on the land? If so, what happens if the rates are not paid? I ask the Minister to outline the answers to those questions. The one matter that I agree with the Premier about concerns control, responsibility and accountability. I firmly believe that if Aboriginal and Islander people are to have increased control, the rewards for the successes and responsibilities and the accountability for the failures must go with it. However, when passing over control, the Opposition firmly believes that assets or privileges should not be given in such a way that would set them apart from the rest of the community, such as the proposal contained in this legislation concerning national parks. The Opposition believes that national parks are for the benefit of all Queenslanders and their ownership should remain with all Queenslanders. It should not be passed over to any section or group, even if it is merely tokenism and in name only. The same applies to mineral royalties. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr SLACK: The member for Maryborough asks for our policies. We believe that minerals belong to all Queenslanders and the revenue directed from royalties should be distributed back to all Queenslanders through the provision of services and without Legislative Assembly 8172 30 May 1991 discrimination in favour of a particular group. This is fair and equitable. If the royalties were returned to the people who owned the land, inequality would develop, because people whose land was being mined for minerals would be benefiting, whereas those people whose communities did not have access to minerals, would be disadvantaged. Inequality would develop between Aboriginal communities. The Government claims to have gained industry support for this legislation. However, from discussions with representatives of many of these groups, the Opposition has come to the conclusion that their support is on the basis that the legislation does not appear to pose a threat to their particular industry. However, reservations have been expressed and there is opposition to many of the Government's proposals. Certainly, unease has been heightened by the revelation that a second, separate briefing paper had been prepared which indicated that the legislation could be more far- reaching than at first thought. The main area of concern on the part of the pastoral and farming industries appears to relate to the future of people who hold leasehold land when their lease expires. I have approached the Minister in this regard and she has given me an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to regazette expired leasehold land to enable it to be open to claims by Aboriginal people. The Minister could further allay those fears by giving an assurance that the vacant Crown land referred to in this legislation is confined to the existing 1.16 per cent of the State. Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish to acknowledge and thank the Aboriginal and Islander people who have spoken to me about their hopes, desires and grievances. While in many instances I may not have supported their views, there are areas where I have done so. I am mindful that they have a deep feeling of frustration; I feel that I understand the reason for many of their concerns. It is unfortunate that they have been placed in a position whereby many have had their hopes raised, only to now feel deep disappointment. Their frustration and disappointment was manifested in the marches that took place last Thursday and yesterday. Although the Premier may have gained some political mileage from referring to the group as a rabble, he should wash his mouth out with soap because whatever unrest has developed is purely a result of his and his Government's shameful raising of the expectations of Aboriginal and Islander people. The Opposition deplores the tactics used by the Government throughout this whole legislative exercise and condemns the Government for it. The Government now has before it a mess. The Opposition does not support the inclusion of the Preamble because, even if it has no legal implications, it gives a sugar coating to a bitter pill. The Opposition does not support the Bill. Hon. P. COMBEN (Windsor—Minister for Environment and Heritage) (12.10 p.m.): With the following words, the Honourable Tim Moore, who is a conservative Environment Minister in this great country, introduced into the New South Wales Parliament the National Parks and Wildlife (Aboriginal Ownership) Amendment Bill and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Aboriginal Ownership of Parks) Amendment Bill— "It is with great pleasure that I support these historic legislative measures for this state that will permit the vesting in Aborigines of an inalienable freehold title to dedicated national park areas that are of great cultural significance to Aboriginal people." Today, by virtue of this legislation, Queenslanders join in a common bond of realism and care of humanity that transcends State boundaries, race and politics. Mr Littleproud: Get away from the notes and speak from the heart. Mr COMBEN: Perhaps I wrote this from the heart. These legislative commitments will provide a means for a wider range of interests in the great national parks of Queensland and the potential for enhanced interpretation and management of the parks estate. This legislation and subsequent changes to the State's conservation legislation will facilitate the development of parks as great as Kakadu, Uluru and Nitmuluk in the Northern Territory. The challenge for us as legislators, my parks staff as managers, and Legislative Assembly 8173 30 May 1991 the community as participants and partners, is to see the legislation work and to see the conservation and interpretative measures enhanced and improved. By virtue of this measure, we in Queensland move into the mainstream conservation movement of the world. The experience and advantages of North America, Ireland and northern Asian models can be used and adapted to apply to a unique Queensland solution. Support for these measures has come from major conservation organisations in Queensland. Neither I nor members of those organisations would allow a reduction in the conservation values of the parks. Since the Goss Government came to power, its record on national parks' management in Queensland has been outstanding. An area of 1.5 million hectares has been acquired or earmarked for national parks. The parks estate is now better managed. Since 1906, we Queenslanders have prided ourselves on the passing of the State Forests and National Parks Act and on having the purest national parks in the world. But do we have the best? Have those parks reached their full potential? The answer to both questions is, "Not yet." People have inhabited this land for more than 100 000 years—people who cared for the land, who lived in balance with it and who have left their footprints in the land—yet we have not fully shown those footprints. The time has come to maturely show and allow another facet of Queensland's park estate to develop while not compromising the conservation values of the parks. Unfortunately, in the past Queenslanders have not recognised the interests and responsibilities of Aboriginal people in regard to those lands, particularly where Aborigines still have interests and responsibilities. For many years, the Aboriginal people have shown their responsible attitude to wildlife found on land adjacent to their communities by their management of native fauna, including protected fauna, under section 7 of the Community Services (Aborigines) Act. This legislation addresses these issues and provides the opportunity for the approach to be expanded to other areas. There will also be opportunities for Aboriginal people to be involved in the ownership, protection and management of those areas. The Bill provides for the gazettal of all or part of a national park as inalienable freehold land, but requires the Aboriginal owner to immediately lease back these parks to the Director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. National parks will be gazetted in relation to claims where an Aboriginal interest is indicated, and the claim will be allowed only on the basis of traditional affiliations or historic associations. This will be determined by a tribunal. Not only will Aboriginal interests be recognised, but also, essentially, the nature conservation values and other values of the parks will continue to be protected. Under this legislation, there will be no compromising of conservation values of the parks. Prior to any changes taking place in land tenure, these interests and values will be protected by the preparation of a perpetual lease agreement and a management plan. These are the necessary, complementary changes to the State's conservation legislation that I wish to address today. This Government is already committed to the introduction of comprehensive nature conservation legislation because, as a result of having been spread over a number of statutes, the existing legislation is inadequate. Although the principal elements of the new policy directions are contained in the Bills that will be discussed today, it is appropriate that I foreshadow the issues that will be addressed in the new conservation legislation and which will be the subject of public consultation. The needs of the Aboriginal people that are set out in this Bill and public participation by the broader community in any processes will be accommodated and expanded in the new legislation. That legislation will address the omissions and shortcomings of the existing legislation. In broad terms, the primary objectives of our native conservation legislation will include— the protection and management of the wildlife of Queensland; the protection of habitat and selected outstanding natural features of Queensland; the establishment and management of a world-class system of national parks and other declared lands capturing the maximum representation of Queensland's biological diversity; and incorporation of the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal communities, recognising their interest in the management of land and wildlife. Legislative Assembly 8174 30 May 1991

The new statute will provide a process for the protection of wildlife on lands varying from national parks through to private lands, using the same procedures. This new nature conservation legislation will provide for the establishment of park management boards, the preparation and approval of park management plans, and provisions dealing with traditional uses. A range of community interests, including conservation , pastoralism and tourism, will be represented on the boards of management and the public will be involved, initially by public comment and, later, comment on the draft plans as they are developed. The park management boards will be responsible for the preparation of the management plan for a national park. Major plans so prepared will be subject to the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the approval of the Governor in Council. The management plans and management board provisions will apply to all major parks. Special provisions to take into account the special interests and the role in management of Aboriginal people will apply to those parks where they are the land-holder. The lease agreement and the management plan will specifically include sections which will protect and allow Aboriginal interests and values. The natural, scenic and other values will be protected in line with the current requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This will be enabled by the preparation of zoning maps and management strategies. The public's right of access to and use of the national parks will be guaranteed, but special areas, especially those of cultural or religious significance, will be protected and access will be limited in these locations. This currently occurs at Uluru—Ayers Rock—and other Northern Territory parks without concern from the tens of thousands of annual visitors. Mr Hobbs: Can you go through it? Can you fly over it? Mr COMBEN: I walked around Uluru. In a fortnight's time, I am to visit north Canada to see the oldest areas which are managed for conservation by the traditional owners. There, we will certainly be taking note of the finer points to find out how we best balance the two needs, to see the enhancement of those parks by those traditional owners and to see how those traditional owners have benefited from this advance—and it is a true advance. Mr Hobbs: Can you be refused entry? Mr COMBEN: At Uluru, there is a power of veto on the traditional owners to say, "This is a sacred site. This is a place specially for women." The honourable member and I would be refused entry. Each year, tens of thousands of visitors visit that area, learn about that, and say, "So be it." That is what we are talking about with this legislation. We are not talking about something which is obscure or which will not allow the average person to go somewhere. We are saying that, for religious significance, there are some areas which will be kept with their religious significance in mind, and the people of Queensland will accept it, as have the people of Australia—the hundreds of thousands who have been to Uluru and are aware of the taboos and of the restrictions in some areas. But it is a great feeling of enhancement. To go to Katherine Gorge national park, to see that board there and to be introduced to the traditional owners and the elders of that place is an enriching experience which takes us back to those days when the Aboriginal people truly owned this land and lived in the balance. That sort of enhancement—to see the interpretation which can be given to us by the Aboriginal people of those parks—is an enrichment which is one that the people of Queensland will support, one which already in many places in Australia the people of Australia have supported. Traditional uses will be covered in the lease agreement and the management plan, but consistent with the sound conservation management of the park. The Law Reform Commission report on traditional use in protected areas provides sound principles which can be applied in this sensitive area. These principles will be the starting point of negotiations and will provide a solid basis for realistic negotiations in Queensland. Traditional use will include the gathering of natural materials, traditional eduction and visitation of an area, and religious use. That is in no way a definitive list. It is a list from which we start and which will be added to by the traditional owners. The discussions that I have had over the last three months lead me to believe that this will be a real advancement and a means by which the National Parks and Wildlife Service of this State will be able to see a greater enrichment. Legislative Assembly 8175 30 May 1991

The provisions in this Bill and the proposed changes to the National Parks and Wildlife legislation will enable the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to involve the skills of the Aboriginal people in the management of their land for the benefit of the community as a whole. This will go hand in hand with Aboriginal employment and training strategies for the parks. The involvement of Aboriginal people in park management and interpretation has been very successful in other States and this will add a new dimension to our park management. It will also provide opportunities for development and recognition of the Aboriginal people and their culture. Although the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service already employs more than 25 Aboriginal people, a percentage of our work force which is higher than that in the community, these jobs and opportunities are mostly through employment schemes which are of a short-term nature. My department's employment strategy for Aboriginal people will develop a program which will enable increased numbers of Aboriginal people to be trained for permanent jobs as rangers and other positions. Those people will bring many skills to the service through their long association with the land and knowledge of wildlife. These skills will enable the experiences of visitors to parks to be enhanced through development of interpretive and educational programs. Where this has been tried elsewhere in Queensland, it has led to much better understanding of the culture of Aborigines and their relationship with and responsibility for nature. These employment opportunities will also provide opportunities for Aboriginal people to be able to improve their self-esteem and assist them to retain their traditional values and identity. Traditional users will need to be conversant with any management plan. Where that is likely to conflict between conservation and traditional uses, then conservation will and must take precedence in accordance with the Law Reform Commission's report, and with the experiences that the Aboriginal people have been able to show us in their own trust lands to this time. In reality, I do not believe this will become a major issue, as the Aboriginal people to whom I have talked primarily want to see these areas and some other areas held by them protected for future generations, and they agree with the principles set out in the Law Reform Commission report. They do want to be able to be involved in the management of the parks and, through ownership, have a responsibility for the land. It is my goal that any use of national parks should be monitored to ensure that changes are not occurring which will degrade the values of the parks. Aboriginal people will be involved in this process. Cooperative arrangements developed on national parks in Cape York in particular will lead to significant gains for conservation through recognition of conservation values on lands owned by Aboriginal communities. These lands include areas such as the Aurukun wetlands, where successful arrangements developed on national parks will be able to be applied on a regional sense in cooperation with the Aurukun people. I look forward to involving the Aboriginal people in a cooperative arrangement in the management of their lands for nature conservation purposes. I believe that it will be a symbiotic association. Both groups interacting together will achieve much more than we could by ourselves. Some people may well be concerned about which parks will be gazetted. I can assure the House that there will not be a flood of gazettals, as both the Aboriginal people and my Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service staff are insistent that what is important is that we do it properly, and this will need a major commitment of scarce resources. The consultative process will allow the values of both parties to be recognised and taken into account in the preparation of the lease and management plans. This will precede any gazettal and thus avoid any misconceptions later on. Criteria which will be considered in any gazettal process will be focused on conservation needs and the needs and uses of the Aboriginal people. Any funds generated on these parks will go back to manage the parks and provide employment and facilities. In addition, funds will be available from the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service program for management and interpretation of these parks. Additional funds will be sought to cover any costs associated with the establishment and management of the parks so that management of other national parks is not jeopardised. We stand on the threshold of a Legislative Assembly 8176 30 May 1991 new era of conservation in a wide sense and specific use of the parks. It is up to members of this Parliament, my park managers and the public to see the vision and seize the opportunity. Today, we have heard the views of the Opposition on land rights legislation—a confused view which borders on racism. It is racism. It is sad that at a time when the Government is doing so much for conservation management in this State—and it can really say, "Here is an opportunity for economic development in some areas, an opportunity for employment of some of the most disadvantaged people of this State"—the Opposition was only willing to say, "This would be unacceptable to us. We have no other solutions. We accept what Bob Katter did so many years ago in adopting a totally Clayton's view of land rights." In contrast to the view expressed today by the Opposition, the Government intends to move along positively in a forward direction. It is one step at a time. It is an ability to say to people, "We will cooperate. We trust you. We believe in you. We are giving you opportunities." That long march ahead has only just begun. It is certainly the view of the Minister in charge of the Bill and the Cabinet that for the first time in Queensland the Government is starting to give back to the Aboriginal people their respect, something which has meant so much to them for 100 000 years. As the supporter of conservation values in this State, I am willing to say, "You did it for so many thousands of years. Now we want to learn from your experience." This Government looks forward to managing with the Aboriginal people something approaching 4 per cent of the State—and, hopefully, in the future, more than that—and the other areas that will be granted under this legislation, and it says clearly to the Aboriginal people, "Thank you for what you can show us in the future. Thank you for your support in these matters." I look forward to an enhanced conservation measure in Queensland, to a parks system which will be as good as that in the Northern Territory. When overseas visitors think of Australia, they think of Ayers Rock and Kakadu. In the future, they will think of Aurukun and Lawn Hill Gorge—huge parks managed by Aboriginal people and boards of management with a majority of Aboriginal representation. The national parks of this State will move into the same realm as Kakadu and Uluru. I am proud of what will be achieved in the future between the Aboriginal people, this Government and the people of Queensland. Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough) (12.28 p.m.): After that hearts and flowers rendition to the gallery—no doubt to cover the lack of any substance in this Bill—I shall endeavour to proceed. This Government and its Premier are a sham. What profound postulations are frequently coming forth from the lips of the illustrious Leader of the Labor Party! Unfortunately, they are just that. There is no substance to their hollow soundings. There are certainly no follow-up actions. The real contents of the Aboriginal Land Bill of 1991 exemplify this. Undoubtedly, the losers are the Aboriginal and Islander peoples. On 22 May in this Chamber, at great length, the Premier held forth with a list of those whom he had consulted prior to drafting this Bill. The list reads like a who's who of important corporate identities. Nowhere on the list do we find the people for whom this Bill is supposed to "address the injustices of the past". Dare I ask: are these not the same sorts of consultations and postulations that the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, so frequently makes? Somewhat similarly, one thinks of that immortal line, "No child in Australia will live in poverty by the year 1990." It is just a lot of hot air with no real intent. It just sounds good at the time—"window-dressing", I think it is called. This Bill is all about window- dressing—dressing up a lemon to look like the real thing. It is a well known fact Australiawide, and to the dismay of many sound Labor Party members in this country, that Labor has deserted the ordinary Australians to run with the high flyers. The same is now happening in Queensland. Premier Goss and his puppet Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ann Warner, have just as certainly run out on the indigenous people of this land. Mark you, we still have platitudinous mouthings of words like "reform". Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. I find those comments offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): The member for Landsborough will withdraw those statements. Legislative Assembly 8177 30 May 1991

Mrs SHELDON: If the Minister finds them offensive, I will withdraw them, but I felt they had a certain level of truth. Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. I do not believe that that was an appropriate withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for Landsborough please withdraw unequivocally. Mrs SHELDON: I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mark you, we still have the platitudinous mouthings of words like "reforms". Unfortunately, as we have seen during the last 18 months, this is as far as reform goes in this State. A couple of weeks ago on the 7.30 Report, the former member for Nundah, Phil Heath, said that Labor in this State was losing its way. He lamented that the much vaunted reforms were in fact not a reality. He felt cheated. He felt this Government was not representing the wishes of its elected members. He stated a fact that most people in this House already know, that the unelected power brokers of the Labor Party, Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd, really set the policies for this Government and, according to Mr Heath, tell the elected members—the people's representatives—what to do. Could one ask, "Shades of Bob Sparkes?" I am sure the people of Queensland will remember the loudly pronounced righteous indignation of the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier of this State when he said of the last Government that the party organisation and other unelected people were really dictating the agenda. What has changed? Mr Goss is just gloss and very little substance. The Aboriginal people have been sold out, and I utter words of caution to those who feel their interests have been looked after. The Minister says in her speech that this legislation is just a step in the whole process. Labor in this State and elsewhere is noted for its hidden agendas. The technique undoubtedly is "soften them up, then come in with the coup de grace". I return to these great—to quote the Minister's second-reading speech—"programs of reform, based on the principles of social justice". She said also, "The dispossession of their land has had devastating effects on Aboriginal people." I put to her the proposition that the Aboriginal people are still dispossessed. They are dispossessed of their culture and they are dispossessed of their right to an expectation of a lifestyle that will guarantee that their children will be educated to a standard that will enable them to become valuable members of this society. They are dispossessed also of their rights to expect the same standard of health care that white Australians take for granted, and they are dispossessed of their right to live to a reasonable age and not die from malnutrition, alcoholism, and diseases such as AIDS. This Bill in no way addresses these fundamental problems. It is high on rhetoric but low on solutions. In the expectation that adequate time would be allocated for consultation and community input after the Bill was introduced to this House, I have organised to go to the Northern Territory and to Cape York to consult with Aboriginal people there, to discuss with them their concerns and problems as they see them, to evaluate their standards of living, health and education, and to talk to the women in these communities and ascertain from them their thoughts on how to combat their multitudinous problems. In these instances women are usually more practical than men. My personal feeling is that, if we are ever truly to come to any real solution to the problems of the indigenous people of this land, we should avidly seek input from Aboriginal women. I was interested to note that recently when I consulted with the Cape York Land Council here in Brisbane, not one of its members was a woman; even their white adviser was a male. I leave to begin this journey next Sunday. Unfortunately the Bill, after lying only seven days on the table of this House, will have been and gone. What a farce this whole situation really is! What a compromise of principle! Civil libertarians on the other side of this House must be hanging their heads in shame. The Minister for Family Services, Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has once again compromised herself and satisfied no-one. It is a well known fact that the Minister wanted a lot more input into the legislation. But like the amendments to the Legislative Assembly 8178 30 May 1991 adoption legislation, she was told by Premier Goss what to do. The person who in fact should have brought this legislation into the House is the Premier. It is his Bill, after all. The Premier originally took control of the issue, obviously because he felt he could not trust his Minister to handle the so-called "consultative period" efficiently enough. Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark because I do not think she should impute the motives of the Premier. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): There is no point of order. Mrs SHELDON: However, when the time came for legislation for land rights, he is handed back the hot potato. And what a hot potato it has proved to be. The Premier and his Minister have shown complete disregard for and ignorance of the true issues at stake. They have tried to please everyone: the mining industry, non-Aboriginal land-owners, conservationists and the Aborigines themselves. In the end, the Minister has created a massive debacle all round, which is largely due to the fact that there has been no consultation of any worth at all. The protests of last week and again yesterday prove unequivocally that those most affected by the legislation, that is, the Aboriginal people, are not satisfied with the Bill before us today. They are not satisfied because they feel that they have been ignored, and quite rightly, too. During the Health Services Bill debate last week in this House, I thanked the Minister for Health for offering the time of two of his foremost departmental officers to brief me on the contents of that Bill. I commended Mr McElligott on his understanding of the importance of the opposition parties' contribution to debate and suggestions on important legislation affecting the people of Queensland. I reiterate the necessity for such briefings to enable the opposition parties to debate adequately legislation and follow the principles as espoused in the Westminster system of democracy. I am saddened by the fact that I cannot say the same for Minister Warner. She has provided only seven days in which to receive comment on the Aboriginal Land Bill, seven days for the Opposition and interest groups to evaluate this most important piece of legislation. Some weeks ago, because it had been rumoured that so-called land rights legislation was shortly to come into the House, I approached the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs outside this Chamber. I said to her that I felt with such an important issue that was of concern to most Australians, black and white, that a truly bipartisan approach in input to legislation should occur. I asked her whether, before legislation was drawn up, consultation between her department and her would take place with Aboriginal and Islander Affairs spokesmen for the other parties . This was a genuine attempt on my part to get the best possible legislation brought in on what is a very contentious and sensitive issue in the community. Her reply was that no consultation would take place but that when legislation was introduced she would get someone to explain it to me. What arrogance and conceit! However, I have been denied even this explanation. Yesterday, the Minister informed me that she had been trying to get someone to carry out this task of explanation but that really all the members of her department were far too busy. So much for the much-vaunted consultative process! So much for true democracy! What a sham this Minister and this Government really are. Premier Wayne Goss and his Minister Anne Warner have made a farce of the Government's promise of open and accountable government. Since the election in 1989, the most serious and condemning accusation—namely, that of lack of public consultation—to be made against a Government has been directed constantly at the Goss Labor Government. How can the Minister expect people to be happy about something in which they have had no input, something that affects their lives and the lives of future generations, and something which even she admits as being one of the most important social reforms brought before this Parliament? This Bill is not a step forward, it is a step backward. It does not address the Aboriginal people's needs and interests because they have not been asked what their needs are. The Labor Government's attitude toward Aborigines is more paternalistic Legislative Assembly 8179 30 May 1991 than that of any previous Government has ever been. As the Minister herself describes the legislation, it is a package—part of the reform package to which her Government alludes. It is a hotchpotch attempt at allaying Aboriginal people's request for land rights. It concedes nothing because it is only an attempt at gratification. As stated by a group of concerned and respected members of the Catholic Church, "What has happened to consultation and responsibility?" I will quote from their advertisement in the Courier-Mail, because it relays the general community's feelings very concisely. The advertisement stated that the proposed legislation, if passed, would be irresponsible due to its indecent haste; exclude urban Aboriginal people; reinforce past Government paternalism; be potentially divisive within Aboriginal communities; provide a precedent for bad legislation, and be contrary to the spirit of Fitzgerald reform. The advertisement asks, "What has happened to this Government's commitment to the Fitzgerald reform process?" I can tell honourable members what has happened. It has gone down the drain, along with the Government's many other election promises. The community is indeed divided. Aborigines feel that they have been ignored and that the real issues and their requests have not been addressed. Land- owners and other members of the community are concerned that the legislation will leave the way open for more and unaccountable land rights and that they will have no protection from possible eviction whatsoever. This legislation provides for vacant Crown land to be made available under claims by Aborigines by gazettal from time to time. This could leave the way clear for land currently leased from the Government by farmers in Queensland to be given to Aborigines when a farmer's lease has run out. Many farmers have lived on this land for generations and do not want to leave. Although I appreciate the importance of land to Aboriginal people, I also emphasise the value and bond that non- Aboriginal land-owners have with their land. It is of some concern to me that the Minister has listed as one of the intentions of the Bill that in the coming years "significant areas of Aboriginal land will emerge from its implementation". I do not want to see land taken from Peter and given to Paul. Obviously, Aboriginal people have certain traditions and their need for land is different from that of non-Aboriginal people. However, I believe that all Australians, both black and white, deserve equal rights to land in Australia. We would simply be reverting to past generations' mistakes by taking land from current land- owners and giving it to others, whether they are Aboriginal or otherwise. Conservationists are concerned, because the legislation provides for the gazettal of certain national parks that can be claimed for Aboriginal purposes. Although the Bill provides for the land to be leased back and the public's right of access to be guaranteed, it also allows for limited access to "special areas", which is certainly an infringement on the rights of average Australians. The mining industry is concerned that hostilities may occur because the Bill provides that the mining of Aboriginal land may be refused by Aboriginal land-holders, but that if this consent is withheld, the Governor in Council may overturn any refusal. This makes a mockery of the rights of the Aboriginal land-holders, is in complete contrast to the Whitlam legislation of the mid-1970s, and completely negates the provisions it seeks to enforce. The Liberal Party has expressed its concern about the rights of mining companies. This Bill does not provide any reason to retract those concerns, nor does it grant any benefits to the Aborigines. A Commonwealth Industry Commission report into mining and minerals-processing in Australia recommended that direct negotiations should occur between traditional Aboriginal owners and mining companies. This Bill will not allow such negotiation and will further prohibit reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal interest groups. Prior to the 1989 election, State Labor Party policy stated— "A State Labor Government will recognise the right of Aboriginal and Islander communities to refuse permission or to establish conditions for commercial exploitation including mining, forestry and fishing on land not designated as sacred. Royalties from such mining will be paid into a trust and used only by and for Aboriginal or Islander people." The Bill does not allow the Aboriginal communities to refuse permission to mining companies, because the latter would have an opportunity to override any refusal through Legislative Assembly 8180 30 May 1991 the Governor in Council. Whether the Liberal Party would or would not support this concept is not in question. What is in question is a breach by the Government of its policy. A further breach is in relation to the royalties, because the Minister has said that the Government will allocate partial royalty equivalents for the general benefit of Aboriginal people under a formula yet to be determined. Is the Minister asking us to approve legislation that has yet to be determined? It is obvious from past performances that we cannot accept a promise on anything from this Government. The Minister quoted quite extensively from the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is obvious that she placed great importance and emphasis on the value of this report. However, an issue of such magnitude as land rights in Queensland did not warrant an inquiry or report. Perhaps it is because the Government has found that such an inquiry creates controversy, as has been evidenced with the Fraser Island inquiry. Perhaps it is also because of the Government's usual insensitive handling of affairs that affect people's lives and futures. The Minister made special comment on the huge amount of consultation on land rights issues that has transpired between her Government and interest groups. Why then have the Aboriginal people protested outside Parliament House? Why have I received many calls from ordinary constituents of mine decrying the Government's steamrolling tactics with this legislation and requesting that I vote against the Bill on the simple platform of no consultation? Is it that the Minister was too busy consulting with people on the Bill that she forgot about the Aboriginal people? As she herself said— "The implementation of this legislation will have an effect on a range of people, interests and groups". Why is it so necessary that this Bill be brought on for debate so quickly? Why could the interest groups not have had time to seriously and thoroughly evaluate the Bill and provide constructive criticism and/or support for the legislation? I cannot emphasise strongly enough my disgust and dissatisfaction with the Minister for rushing this most important and far-reaching legislation through Parliament this week. As the Minister said, Aboriginal people have been waiting a long time for land rights. If that is the case, why the rush? What is the real hidden agenda behind this legislation? The Minister's actions make a mockery of our democratic society. On 1 May this year, the Aboriginal Coordinating Council wrote to the Premier expressing its concern that legislation would be rushed through without consultation with Aboriginal groups and before the release of the legislation review committee's report relating to the management of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Queensland, which is due in August. What is the point of incurring the huge cost of that inquiry if its findings are not to be used in constructive and appropriate legislation? As the council said: if the job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Another cause for concern is the Minister's absolute discretion in appointing trustees. According to the Bill, trustees hold a great deal of power, particularly as to what land can be leased to non-Aboriginal people. There is no stipulation as to the qualifications of the trustees. Labor's pre-election promise was that land tenure would be in two forms, one of which would be the areas determined as sacred sites by community councils in consultation with traditional owners, upon which no exploitation may ever take place. This does not seem to be provided of in Bill, because the ministerially appointed trustee may lease all or part of his land to Aboriginal people and, in certain circumstances, non-Aboriginal people. It leaves open the question as to whether those sacred sites will be totally protected. The Minister stated that adjacent land-holders' interests with respect to the management of feral pests and animals would be assured through a consultative process. To date, consultative processes by this Minister leave a lot to be desired, and leave many doubts as to the certainty of protection to adjacent land-holders. The Government has included a sunset clause for review after 15 years. In light of the controversy surrounding this Bill, 15 years seems excessive. It would be reasonable to review the legislation within five to eight years. Within that time-frame, initial problems will have arisen. If not attended to, those problems will become extremely Legislative Assembly 8181 30 May 1991 serious and may jeopardise those whom the Bill is intended to help. If legislation is not adequately assessed, it could leave open the way for abuses of its intentions. We could be faced with the prospect of land rights claims to private land. These are not wild exaggerations that I have made. They are possibilities, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that they do not happen. I condemn the Goss Labor Government for the non-consultative manner in which it has brought this legislation before the House, and for unduly raising the hopes of the Aboriginal and Islander people when it had no intention of performing. The Labor Party should not be allowed to govern by stealth and secrecy. It has not even given a token demonstration of democracy. I also condemn the Minister for her insensitive handling of this issue and for not allaying the fears of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals and groups affected by this legislation. The Liberal Party does not support this Bill. Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (12.48 p.m.): I am pleased to speak in support of the Aboriginal Land Bill 1991. Many features of this Bill are worthy of mention, but I will confine my comments to the key features of the legislation which relate to land. The land dealt with under this Bill can be described as falling within two broad categories. The first category is land that is currently deed of grant in trust land, Aboriginal reserve land or land that is leased to the councils at Aurukun and Mornington Island. That category of land is described in the legislation as "transferable land". Freehold title to that land will be transferred to trustees to be held on behalf of Aboriginal people. The second category of land is described in the legislation as "claimable land". That category comprises transferred land, vacant Crown land and national park land. So that there can be no misunderstanding, I will describe in some detail the type of land in those categories that can become Aboriginal land, and the strong form of title that Aboriginal people will obtain under this legislation. I will then outline to the House the process by which groups of Aboriginal people can have their land claims evaluated and determined. As I said, transferable land includes deed of grant in trust land, Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire lease land and Aboriginal reserves. The form of inalienable freehold title granted over the existing deed of grant in trust areas will be a considerable improvement on the existing form of deeds. At present, the title for each deed of grant in trust area is like a patchwork quilt. Most of the holes in that quilt are taken up by Crown land that is dedicated for a present public purpose, land that is dedicated for possible future public purposes or Crown land that was excised from the title and is subject to a lease. By transferring title to all such land to Aboriginal people, the proposed legislation will replace that patchwork quilt. Only roads and stock-routes will be excised from the new titles. The most tangible element of this advance involves vacant Crown land that has been reserved for a future public purpose. Schools, hospitals, police stations and the like will remain the property of the Crown, but the land on which they are located will become Aboriginal land. The Crown will not pay rent for its use of the land, and Crown officers will be guaranteed all necessary access. Existing leases over blocks of Crown land within the boundaries of deed of grant in trust land will be preserved, but the land will become Aboriginal land. The net result will be a much tidier form of title and a more secure nature of title to deed of grant in trust land. I turn now to the Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire leases. Most people will be familiar with the history of those leases, which were granted in 1978 under the Bjelke-Petersen Government. They represent a less secure form of title than deed of grant in trust title, being 50-year leases only. The legislation before this House will place Aboriginal lands covered by those two leases—some 0.5 per cent of the State—in exactly the same category as other Aboriginal inalienable freehold title. The other areas of land that will be transferable land are Aboriginal reserves. Reserves currently provide the least secure form of tenure that is available for Aboriginal people. At present, the trustee for most of the reserves is the Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Those people who live on reserves have, in a legal sense, very flimsy rights to the use or occupation of that land. Under the proposed legislation, inalienable freehold title will be granted over that land. The grant of title will place the Legislative Assembly 8182 30 May 1991 relevant Aboriginal people in the same position as those Aboriginal people living in the areas that I described earlier. The land that I have described in the transferable land category represents up to 1.8 per cent of the area of the State, or approximately 3.1 million hectares.The grant of secure title under the Government's legislation will be a significant advance for Aboriginal people. The legislation before the House will do more than strengthen the title to existing areas of Aboriginal land. It will provide also an opportunity for groups of Aboriginal people to make claims to areas of vacant Crown land and national parks which will be gazetted as available for claim. By making vacant Crown land available for claim, we will be releasing an estimated additional 2 million hectares, or approximately up to 1 per cent of the State. By making national parks available for claim, we will potentially be making up to a further 3.84 million hectares available for claim, or up to 2.2 per cent of the State. That area may increase if more land is acquired for national park purposes. Claimable land will be able to be claimed on one or more of three grounds: traditional affiliation with the land claimed, historical association with the land claimed, or the economic or cultural viability of the group making the claim. All new land successfully claimed on the basis of traditional affiliation and historical association will be granted on the most secure form of title available under the Crown, namely, inalienable freehold title. Land successfully claimed on the basis of economic or cultural viability will be provided on the basis of a secure lease—a perpetual or term lease—with specific conditions attached. I turn now to the land claim process. The legislation has been written carefully to ensure that the interests of Aboriginal people are taken into full account. That is particularly evident in the procedures for the lodging of an application for claim and in the hearing and determination of valid claims by the Land Tribunal. In my opinion, the position of Land Claims Registrar will be essential to the proper implementation of the legislation. The registrar will function as the first point of official contact for Aboriginal people who are making a land claim. All applications will be considered by the registrar. As I mentioned earlier, applications will be accepted not only on the grounds of traditional affiliation and historical association but also on the grounds of economic or cultural viability. Therefore, the widest possible range of interests of Aboriginal people have been catered for under the lodgment procedures. Unfounded land claims will be discouraged. People making a claim will be required to satisfy certain minimum requirements before their application will be accepted. Among other things, they will have to provide a statement of the responsibilities that they will assume in relation to the land and, in some cases, provide notice of the intended use of the land. That will enable Aboriginal people to truly assume their responsibilities for the management of their land. All correctly made claims will be referred to the Land Tribunal for determination. However, the registrar may receive claims that should not proceed further. An incorrectly made claim will not simply be refused outright or referred back to the claimant group. The registrar will identify the grounds on which the application for claim was refused and may assist in the resubmission of a corrected application. The Land Tribunal will hear correctly made claims. It will be responsible for determining whether such claims can be legitimately established. At all times, the tribunal will give the widest possible consideration to the interests of the claimant Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders. For example, the spiritual and special associations that people have for the land will be taken into account. For claims based on economic or cultural viability, the tribunal will examine whether the grant of the claim would assist in restoring, maintaining or enhancing the capacity of the claimant group for self-reliance, self- development or cultural integrity. The tribunal will also be obliged to consider the interests of other concerned individuals and the wider community. Proceedings will normally be held in public. All claims under consideration will be subject to public notice and widely advertised to ensure that interested persons may apply to be a participating party to the proceedings for the hearing of the claim. Once a successful claim has been established, the tribunal will assist the claimant group to assume the responsibility for the land. It will recommend the appointment of trustees consistent with relevant Aboriginal tradition only in accordance Legislative Assembly 8183 30 May 1991 with the wishes of the successful claimant group. Might I simply say that the legislation represents a significant milestone in the granting of rights to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders and provides a responsible, balanced and fair statutory mechanism for the management of their land. I acknowledge the ability of many Aborigines with whom I have been associated over the years. In my early days, I was fortunate to have worked with many Aboriginal stockmen on both cattle and sheep properties. I also visited them on their reserves, as they were then called. Those people have great ability, but they were hindered by the paternalistic administration of the previous Government. On visiting those reserves and meeting with those people, their managers and many of the elder people, which I always did when I visited them, I was able to see at first-hand the ability of Aboriginal people. They had the chance to show and the opportunity to develop their ability to take their place in the community and to play a very constructive role. If any people who are involved in the grazing industry were to go to the bottom of the cape or the gulf, they would hear about two Aboriginal stockmen, who are referred to by name. It was the ambition of many young white stockmen to be the equal of Darcy Day and Johnny Tooth. Those two men were legends in their own life-times. They gained the greatest respect from all sections of the community. Admittedly, they did it the hard way. They showed that they had the ability and that, if they were given the opportunity, they could make the most of it. Today, many, many Aborigines are in the same position. All that they ask is to be given the opportunity and the incentive. The Minister is to be complimented for introducing the legislation. Although there may have been some argument about the time that it took, at least Aborigines will have something positive and they will be able to make their own decisions. A few years ago, when I visited the Kowanyama area I saw one of the greatest displays of fresh vegetables that I have ever seen in any shop. They told me that the vegetables were home-grown, and I said that I would like to see where they were grown. I saw tomatoes, cucumbers, pumpkins and just about all of the other vegetables that could be found in any fruit and vegetable market in a big city. However, they were all starting to die. The people were just harvesting the last lot. When I asked what had happened, I was told that sand had got into the pump and the impeller was burnt out. The previous Government refused to pay for the cost of a new impeller to keep that vegetable garden going. Those people were self-sufficient. They did not depend upon anybody. They had done it all themselves, but the paternalistic administration was saying that the impeller should have lasted longer and that the pump would not be replaced. Given the opportunity, the Aboriginal people will measure up to their expectations. Sitting suspended from 1.01 till 2.30 p.m. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (2.30 p.m.): I note that the Minister has just made it into the Chamber. I welcome her into the Chamber for this debate on the Aboriginal Land Bill. I cannot but ask: why the rush? Mr Gunn: They have a conference. Mr STEPHAN: Yes, I believe they have a conference and that is one of the reasons why Parliament is not resuming next week. The Government is trying to rush through this piece of legislation and a number of other pieces of legislation. It is burning the midnight oil. I do not know how many members on the Government side of the House are in favour of the long hours that this Parliament is sitting. I see that Mr Livingstone has a smile on his face. He goes along willingly. The Government says, "Sit down", and he obeys. The Opposition spokesman highlighted the activity that has taken place in order to introduce this legislation into the House for debate this week. Again I ask: why has so much overtime been worked to put this legislation before the House? Why have so many Saturdays and Sundays been set aside to put this legislation in place when in fact the Government knows very well that it is not ready for it and that it has not allowed complete consultation to occur with Aboriginal communities throughout Queensland? If Legislative Assembly 8184 30 May 1991 the Government has their support, why did demonstrations occur outside Parliament House last week and again yesterday? These demonstrations have resulted in damage to property and equipment and have had a detrimental effect on those people. They are not standing outside for the good of their health or because they want to pat the Minister on the back, they are standing outside because they object to this legislation. Those demonstrations have not done much for the Aboriginal community. The demonstrators went out of their way to displace the Australian and Queensland flags. During the war many people served under and died for those flags. They do not wish to see them desecrated in that way. Mr Dollin interjected. Mr STEPHAN: What is the honourable member getting upset about now? He is not too sure which way he wants to go. If the honourable member wants to support that view, he can do so, but he must let the community know what he is supporting. I am not too sure which Minister has the carriage of this legislation. The Premier and the Minister have apparently been working in cooperation, although rumour has it otherwise. They have introduced this legislation without sufficient consultation and they have created an expectation which cannot be met. They have created an expectation within Aboriginal communities throughout Queensland, but the Government cannot deliver. That becomes quite obvious when one listens to Aborigines who say that they have not been consulted, that they are not happy and that they have been led up the garden path. The Bill takes control away from the elected representatives under the deeds of grant in trust. I will mention that again later on. This control will be put in the hands of those nominated by the Minister and the trustees. Irrespective of what the Minister says, if the trustees have control of the land, they will have control of what happens on the land also. Ms Warner interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I believe what the Minister has here in the legislation. Under the legislation they are the trustees and, if that is so, they will have control of the land. If that is not the case, why are they appointed as trustees? Why is the Minister insisting that they be appointed as trustees? Ms Warner: That's your problem. You have eyes, but you see not. Mr STEPHAN: Did the Minister say that she had a problem? Ms Warner: You have a problem. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister has a problem trying to implement this legislation. What is written in the legislation is not what the Minister believes. The Minister will find this out if she goes along and when she listens to the people in the communities. Ms Warner: Are you going to echo the racist comments of previous National Party speakers? Mr STEPHAN: I have heard more racist comments from the Government side of the House than I have from any other section of the community. The Minister points the finger and talks about racist comments, but she should look at her own attitude to racism. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! Would the member for Gympie please continue with his speech? Mr STEPHAN: I am continuing with my speech. I was taking an interjection from the Minister. I was pointing out that these are the same sorts of comments as the ones made by the Premier about the rabble that he claims he has stirred up in the last couple of days. Legislative Assembly 8185 30 May 1991

In her second-reading speech the Minister made several comments that I would like to mention. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody clearly identified the need for land by Aboriginal people. Another problem is the ready availability of alcohol in these communities. There is nothing contained in this legislation that will overcome these problems. Ms Warner: It's a land Bill. Mr STEPHAN: It may be a land Bill, but it is also dealing with the lives of people in Aboriginal communities. The Minister referred to that in her second-reading speech. Why are Government members contradicting me now? Of course this is a land Bill, and its provisions cover many of the activities undertaken by Aborigines in Aboriginal communities. I am pointing out the difficulties they have in looking after their own health. One of the major problems is alcohol. Ms Warner: That comes under community services legislation. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister cannot say that it is not part of her responsibilities. Ms Warner: It is part of my responsibility, but not under this Bill. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister has admitted that it is part of her responsibility, but she is trying to stop me from talking about it. It would be better if she tried to do something about the problem. I was endeavouring to ask the Minister what measures she had put in place and what action she had taken to help overcome the effects of alcohol. I point out that Aboriginal councils are taking steps on their own initiative to address this problem. The type of activity to which I have referred has an influence on Aboriginal communities that cannot be ignored. Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member seems to be speaking to community services legislation in respect of alcohol control rather than to the legislation that is before the House. Mr STEPHAN: This is a matter that obviously concerns the Minister. I hope she will take notice of what I have been saying and bear in mind that the problem must be addressed. In the Minister's second-reading speech, she stated— "This Government is committed to implementing reform that will provide Aboriginal people with an opportunity to gain secure title to their traditional land and enable them to maintain their identity, spirituality, and cultural and economic viability." I believe that the Minister has incorrectly addressed the issue of traditional land because the history of Aboriginal communities reveals that traditional land was reasonably small in area for each tribe. A tribe's traditional land would have boundaries marked by features such as mountains, rivers and certain stretches of plain. When the Minister refers to traditional land, I point out that the term applies to the land that belongs to a single tribe and not to the land owned by the entire Aboriginal community in Australia. The Minister nods her head in agreement, but I query how many Aboriginal people today could legitimately claim title to their traditional land. Does the Minister contend that people of mixed blood would also have a legitimate claim to traditional land, bearing in mind that tribal lore does not recognise mixed races? Aboriginal communities do not recognise non-black people. Mr Bredhauer: Are you an expert on Aboriginal culture? Mr STEPHAN: Is the honourable member saying that they do? Mr Hayward: Why don't you read the Bill? Mr STEPHAN: Is the honourable member saying that when the first white settlers came, non- black Aborigines were also recognised as the traditional owners of the land? Legislative Assembly 8186 30 May 1991

Ms Warner interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The Minister is suggesting that they are, but I suggest that she is mistaken and has been led astray badly. I am relying on information from people who have had lengthy dealings with different Aboriginal groups. These people disagree with the Minister. Mr Livingstone: Name them! Who are they? Ms Warner: Let us have your references. Who gave you this information? Mr STEPHAN: The Minister can do her own research. Government members interjected. Mr STEPHAN: It is all very well for members to laugh. I know of books that have been written on the subject and I suggest that the Minister read some of them to see what has been pointed out in information that is readily available. Ms Warner: Just one book; name just one book. Mr STEPHAN: A number of books have been written. Mr Booth: Quote her introductory speech. She said very little about land rights. It is all about people being locked up, and all that sort of thing. Mr STEPHAN: That is exactly what the Minister has said. I suggest that the Minister read Birth Rights, Land Rights to gain an understanding of some of the activities and some of the thinking behind the activities that are taking place in the various communities. The Minister can learn from those who have had a life-time of experience and know what is happening in various communities throughout Australia. I have given the Minister the title of one book, and that is a start; she can follow up other information herself. If she takes the trouble, she may become a little better educated in relation to this matter than she is now. Ms Warner: It has already been established—— Mr STEPHAN: On what authority does the Minister rely to establish her statements? Ms Warner: It has already been established that you have a problem with reading. Mr STEPHAN: By whom? The Minister is not prepared to answer me by providing references. She hides behind references that she wishes to rely on, but will not reveal the sources. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the deeds of grant in trust, which have attracted some criticism. Simply because there have been problems associated with this form of tenure, there is no need to pull down the whole house if there are one or two sections only that need to be rectified. The Minister is trying to pull down the whole house, even though it is not necessary to do so. She refers to the changes that will occur when land that is the subject of deeds of grant in trust is transferred to Crown land. Ms Warner: Mr Stephan, which parts are you referring to? Mr STEPHAN: Presently, I am reading from the Minister's second-reading speech, which states— "Under these changes schools, hospitals and police stations will remain the property of the Crown, but the land on which they stand will become Aboriginal land." Under those circumstances, the land will be held in trust and controlled by people outside Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal culture. Aborigines will still have to obtain approval before they gain access to the land, and I can see no benefit to the Aboriginal communities or to the wider Australian community from that type of proposal. The Minister will add to the difficulties by segregating Aborigines from the rest of Legislative Assembly 8187 30 May 1991

Australia instead of ensuring that they become part of the nation that they—as much as anybody else—helped to build. If they are given the encouragement, there is every reason to believe that the Aboriginal people will be able to continue to make Australia a better place in which to live. I wonder how many Government members have worked with Aboriginal communities and families. It is only by working with those people over a period that one realises that one's own point of view is not the only point of view. It would be a good idea if Government members had consulted Aboriginal communities to a greater extent. Mr Comben spoke of Aboriginal ownership of national park areas. I question why the Government makes land available for Aboriginal communities in national parks and thereby distinguishes their rights from those of all other Australians. At present, Queenslanders are concerned at the different legislation that is provided for one race in Australia as compared to that provided for other races. If one segment of the community can have access to national parks, all Australians should have that same opportunity. By introducing this legislation, the Government is dividing Queensland and Australia. Government members interjected. Mr STEPHAN: The Government is dividing the people of Australia. If Government members do not believe that, it indicates that they have not travelled further than Queen Street. I wonder how often the honourable member for Brisbane Central has worked with people other than those in Queen Street. I realise that he has communicated with people on some committees, but I wonder how often he has worked with Aboriginal people. Mr Beattie: I've spent more time in the bush than you have. Mr STEPHAN: He has not worked with them, yet he attempts to ridicule me when I point out problems. The Government is causing division in the community and the honourable member for Brisbane Central does not realise it. I feel sorry for him. As a result of this legislation, the people of Queensland will have to pay to gain access to national parks. If that is not dividing the community, I do not know what is. I do not say that people should not pay for access to national parks, but that access should not be available to just one section of the community; it should be available to all Australians. Mr Beattie: Very sad. Mr STEPHAN: It is very sad. Mr Beattie: This speech is very sad. Mr STEPHAN: It is about time that the honourable member realised that his attitude is very sad. If he is prepared to divide two communities in the one land, I feel sorry for him. He will find that this legislation will not be plain sailing. I wanted to highlight those matters, but it appears that my comments are falling on deaf ears. Those problems will not go away and they are not addressed adequately in the legislation, as was evidenced yesterday by the demonstrators who were genuine in their desire to point out to the Government that this legislation will not overcome the problems of Aborigines. Government members are not listening to the wishes and desires of Aborigines. The Government has been prepared to rush this legislation through without obtaining adequate advice from or having adequate consultation with the community. It is a pity that the Premier is not in the Chamber. From time to time in the media, he has had much to say about this subject. However, when the legislation is debated in the Chamber, he is neglecting his responsibility to the Aboriginal people by not giving us the benefit of his opinion when he has the opportunity to do so. Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (2.50 p.m.): Three life-times ago, white people founded a convict settlement where we are now debating this Bill. They made a profound error. They failed to recognise in law or in practice the system of Aboriginal law and Aboriginal Legislative Assembly 8188 30 May 1991 land ownership which had operated in this land for at least 40 millennium. This Bill corrects that error by recognising for the first time in the history of this Parliament the principle of traditional Aboriginal land ownership. That profound error ran through the history of this State in a way which caused the dispossession—the alienation—of Aboriginal and Islander nations. This Bill recognises that there is a right at law for Aboriginal people to claim land on the basis of their traditional links with that land. That is a radical breakthrough in the development of law in Queensland. It is a profound change in the bedrock upon which our law is built. This Legislature is not the only Legislature in Queensland. It is but one of two great Legislatures, that is, the Legislature which we know as the Legislative Assembly and the Legislature of Aboriginal and Islander people. For, make no mistake, the law-making of Aboriginal and Islander people has not been extinguished by two centuries of colonisation. What this Bill attempts to do is to send a message from this Legislature that for the first time since colonisation in Queensland the Government accepts and recognises the existence and operation of a system of law and land-ownership which is an ancient and powerful tradition. I will deal with the development of that principle since colonisation, with the practical benefits which this Bill will confer upon Aboriginal and Islander people and with the issue of national parks, but before I do so let me deal with the contributions made by the members of the Opposition and the Liberal Party so far in this debate. I confess that in this area, which is a difficult area, it is easy to see the shortcomings of the Bill. It is easy to see how much further we need to go in order to achieve a true rapprochement between the two great legal and cultural traditions of our State. Those concerns upon which I reflected were dispelled as the day dispels the mist when I listened to the member for Burnett, for one comes to this House to listen to the criticism made by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and, indeed, by the Liberal Party. What is the force—what is the sting—of that criticism? The whole attack on this Bill centres on one issue: consultation. That is the basis of their attack. It is the basis upon which they maintain their opposition, and once diverted from that issue, one sees a very ugly prospect indeed of the true and deep-seated resistance on the part of the National Party and the Liberal Party to the significant reforms of this Bill. The honourable member for Burnett purported to attack the Bill on the grounds of its being tokenism, and yet in his own speech referred, with approval, to the recent Canadian judgment in which he said there was rejection of the entire basis of land rights. That is to say, we are confronted on the one hand with an argument of tokenism, that the Bill does not go far enough, and on the other hand with an argument that there should be no land rights as such recognised in our law. What a patent inconsistency. Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The member for Yeronga is deliberately misrepresenting what I said. At no stage did I say or indicate that the Bill does not go far enough. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! There is no point of order. Mr FOLEY: The contribution of the honourable member for Landsborough was essentially upon the same lines. The attack is mounted to the effect that this Bill is window-dressing, that it is a sell-out. Yet, when developing her argument, the honourable member alluded to the concerns about the possibility of land being available when farmers' leases expire, alluded to concerns about the veto on mining and, indeed, alluded to what she saw as the desirability of having a sunset clause of less than 15 years. Mrs Sheldon: Don't you think white Australians have any concerns about this at all? Don't you think they should have any concerns about this? Mr FOLEY: Quite so. Of course white Australia should have concerns, because the current state of the law diminishes the dignity and status of white Australia as much as it diminishes the dignity and status of black Australia. The whole point of introducing reform in this area is not merely to confer a benefit upon Aboriginal and Islander people, Legislative Assembly 8189 30 May 1991 it is to come to terms with the profound injustice upon which our law and our system of land-ownership has been hitherto predicated. It is as important for my family as it is for the families of Aboriginal and Islander people. It is as important for those of us who are descended from the Irish and the English to make a rapprochement to come to terms with those families and peoples who claim this land as their own by dint of historical origins from time immemorial. Up until now we have proceeded upon a patent legal fiction which has been devoid of both historical justification and merit. That error was elevated to become a binding doctrine on Australian courts, or at least so it was thought by the Privy Council in 1886 in the case of Cooper v. Stuart when their Lordships wrongly found that there was no settled system of law, nor settled inhabitants, at the time "when the colony was peacefully annexed to the British dominion". We know that that is false. We know that this colony was not peacefully annexed to the British dominion. We know that there was a frontier war in which tens of thousands of Aboriginal people died. We know that there was a settled system of law and that there were inhabitants with a complex, rich and ancient culture prior to colonisation. Indeed, the awareness of this has declined in this Legislature over the past century. Aboriginal land rights is not a trendy issue, Aboriginal land rights is an issue which was hotly debated during the early days of this colony but which sadly went off the agenda during most of this century. I refer to one example back in 1879, in a cartoon in an edition of Queensland Punch, when the debate concerned what policy should be adopted in respect of what was called the Aboriginal problem, which many Aboriginal people now quite correctly refer to as the white problem. At that time, solutions were offered in this cartoon on the Aboriginal problem. Bishop Hale on the left held the feeding bottle of social welfare. The Reverend Duncan McNab on the right held freehold title as the solution. At the back, Sergeant Connor of the native police, cutely, in his words, considered the bullet. Those three things: social welfare, criminal law, and land rights, continue to this day to be the pivotal areas of policy to which Governments relate in their dealings with Aboriginal and Islander people. I table that extract from Queensland Punch. That reminds us that no Government prior to this Government had the courage to come into this House and change the basis of recognition of Aboriginal land title. In 1884, the Native Labourers Protection Act was passed. It was followed in 1897 by the Protection of Aborigines and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act. But it was then thought that Aborigines would die away and that it was necessary simply to smooth the dying pillow. Well, Aborigines did not die away. They continued to assert their rights, and it was in the 1970s, under that great Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, that the Australian Government took steps to introduce a review of the legislation which was ultimately introduced under the Fraser Government in 1976, namely the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. What a sad thing to witness how far the Liberal Party has declined in the past 15 years. Is this the same party which introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and which now scurries away from this legislation using the red herring of a consultation issue in order to refuse to face up to this central question. Will we or will we not, as a Legislature, give acknowledgment to the Aboriginal and Islander system of law and land ownership. We on this side of the House give a resounding "Yes" to that question, whereas those who will, throughout the course of this debate, continue to harp on the issue of consultation and not look at the substance of the Bill, do a great disservice to the development of law in this State. Let me turn to the practical benefits which will be conferred by this legislation. The existing deed of grant in trust areas will be available as inalienable freehold title. Timber and quarry rights will be included. At present, that is not the case, despite certain written assurances by the previous Government. That omission will be reformed under this Bill. The people of Mornington Island and Aurukun will gain a benefit under this Bill. Their current 50-year leases will be converted to inalienable freehold. We all remember that dark time in 1978 when Premier Bjelke-Petersen degazetted Aurukun and Mornington Island as Aboriginal reserves in an attempt to frustrate Prime Minister Fraser in his self- management efforts. They still have been left with a legacy of insecurity of tenure. Legislative Assembly 8190 30 May 1991

That will be cured. Residents of Aboriginal reserves will gain a benefit, in that that land will be subject to inalienable freehold title whereas previously Aboriginal reserves would be merely at the discretion of a trustee, that is, the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. New land will be available for claim by Aborigines. At present, Aboriginal lands represent some 1.8 per cent of the State or 3.1 million hectares. Vacant Crown land will be made available, thereby releasing an additional 2 million hectares, or 1.16 per cent of the State. Of course, national parks will also be available for claim, and that makes a further 3.84 million hectares, or 2.2 per cent of the State, available for claim. Unlike the legislation introduced by Malcolm Fraser in respect to the Northern Territory, this Bill will make available the right for urban people and people in provincial areas to claim in respect of land of which they have no traditional or historical association. Amidst the sound and fury of debate, this elementary point has been overlooked. This Bill introduces a novel ground, namely, economic or cultural viability as a ground of claim. That is a major reform which sets this legislation ahead of the legislation operating in other parts of Australia. The position with respect to national parks is one in which Aboriginal people will be entitled to participate with respect to the management plan. The importance of that relates to Aboriginal traditional activities relating to the land, including hunting, fishing, and food-gathering. Also, we have learned from the Uluru model that it is important that Aboriginal people who have a traditional or historical association with national park land should be entitled to a say. Their ownership of that land should be recognised, and the legitimate demands of conservationists and other community groups can properly be recognised under the management plan. I make no secret of the fact that—indeed, my view is a matter of public record—in my opinion there are a number of areas in which this legislation falls short of that to which we should aspire as Aboriginal land rights legislation. Matters such as the statutory land acquisition fund, regional land councils and improved provisions for mining are subjects about which many Aboriginal people have spoken. Their voices have put forward very sound arguments. However, that should not be allowed to confuse and confound the essential achievements of this Bill. I refer the House to an excellent analysis of the Bill, undertaken by Father Frank Brennan, a barrister and a person with a long history of involvement with the Aboriginal and Islander community, appearing in this week's Catholic Leader. The analysis is headed "Insensitive consultation—but it's a step forward". I table that analysis, for it weighs in with substantial criticism of the consultation process, and no doubt that will be debated for years to come. But let us not forget, amidst the heat of that argument, exactly what as a matter of law we are dealing with in addressing this legislation currently before the House. On that issue of consultation, I note the document tabled in this House on 22 May and incorporated in Hansard concerning the pattern of consultation provided for during the course of the preparation of this legislation. In that respect, I do invite the Minister to clarify, in the course of this debate, what provision was made available in respect of consultation with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, that being, of course, the statutory body. Ms ROBSON (Springwood) (3.09 p.m.): I move— "That the member for Yeronga be further heard." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! Under Standing Order 109, it can be moved that a member be further heard, but it has to be with the consent of the majority of the House. I will now put the question that the honourable member be further heard under Standing Order 109. Mr BOOTH: Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that you intend to put the question to the House, I think it should be open to debate. The situation is that we have accepted—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Legislative Assembly 8191 30 May 1991

Mr McGrady: That's a speech. Mr BOOTH: No, it is not a speech. It needs to be debated if it is to be put to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Part of Standing Order 109 states— "Provided further that with the consent of a majority of the House, to be determined without Debate, a Member may be further heard for a period not exceeding thirty minutes." I believe that that time allocation has been changed to 15 minutes. Mr BOOTH: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am obtaining further information from the Clerk. Does the honourable member for Springwood wish to withdraw that motion? Ms ROBSON: I withdraw the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Warrego. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (3.11 p.m.): The Bill before the House is the end product of a process of deceit and extortion on the part of this Labor Government. This legislation is being rushed through the House. One has only to look at what has been done. As was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman earlier in the debate, in order to prepare the legislation people worked and were paid for 198 days' overtime as well as for work that was carried out on 33 nights and weekends. I ask the Minister: why the rush? If the Premier wanted to consult widely and fairly with people, why is the Bill being put through with undue haste? I guess when we ask ourselves, "Why?", we can probably answer the question very easily. The main reason that the Premier wanted this legislation rushed through was to ensure the re- election of Wayne Goss and the Labor Government at the next election. One does not have to be very bright to realise that. It is unfortunate that the Premier and members opposite have used the Aboriginal people of this State for an election ploy. In 18 months of Government, they have succeeded what we in the National Party could not do in 30 yearsÐÐthey caused them to riot in the streets. Never before have the Aboriginal people had to come to the doors of Parliament and tear them down. In 18 months, members opposite have succeeded in causing them to do that. They are a disgrace! It is an absolute disgrace for the people of Queensland to call this Government a Government at all. It is a Government that operates by deceit. It is a Government that wants to be re-elected by using any method possible. This Government has used the people of Queensland. There are also grave consequences for the land tenure system that has served Queensland well for so long. From the time the Minister took office, the issue of land rights was going to be a headache for the Premier. Government members interjected. Mr HOBBS: I have obviously stirred up members opposite. I am pleased to hear that. The Minister ignored the cold shower directive and headed straight for her soul mates in Canberra. The wimpish policies of a Premier with an eye on the popularity polls were not for her. She went straight to ATSIC—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission—which was foisted on Australia by the Left Wing toe-cutter, Gerry Hand, in 1989. Her faction mate's creation yielded plenty of ideas, and some people who would come in on contract to put them in place. Out went the people, black and white, who made the DOGIT system work to such advantage for the black people of this State. In came the crowd—and, guess what, mostly all of them are white—who have turned into an industry the real problems black people face. The future growth industry of Queensland will be land rights. The people who will benefit are the white carpetbaggers, not the Aboriginal people of Queensland. Mr Booth: They have taken over the parks. Legislative Assembly 8192 30 May 1991

Mr HOBBS: That is right, they have taken over the parks. They even pulled down the gates of Parliament House. The Minister set those white people to work, raising black expectations to totally unreal levels and preparing legislation that frightened everyone except the Minister's own Left Wing faction. By early this year, the Premier had no choice other than to intervene. He could no longer pretend that nothing to do with land rights was happening in the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. There was too much talk going on amongst black communities and too much informed speculation about what was being promised. The Premier and his two chief minders, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan, are nothing if not realists. They knew what would happen if Labor went ahead and implemented the "looney" Left land give-away that was promised to every Aboriginal group in the State. They realised how serious it was when the department put a submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. That submission, which contained proposals that would have fundamentally altered the land tenure system in Queensland, sought to prove a pre- existing Aboriginal title to all land in Australia. The submission, which also invited the commissioner to recommend a massive hand-over of land, sought to treat one group of Australians as intrinsically different from all other Australians. It would have gone down like a lead balloon, and the Premier knew that. Just to be sure, he went along to Mr Fitzgerald's dispute resolution conference and floated a general proposal for large-scale grants. It is absolutely disgraceful to see what the Premier has done. Today's Sun carries a letter of protest by various people from Queensland and throughout Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! This is becoming very repetitive. That letter has been referred to by the honourable member for Burnett. The honourable member should not be repetitive. He can mention it, but I do not want him to go through the whole thing. Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, with due respect, I know that you are trying to take up my time but—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is a reflection on the Chair. The honourable member will withdraw that remark. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr HOBBS: I withdraw. I was in the House when the shadow Minister gave his speech, and I point out that I intend to refer to the following, different part of that letter— "We believe your government's consultation process and land rights legislation betray your statement." The shadow Minister spoke about the statement. I am speaking about the deceit that was written in black and white for the people of Queensland to read. As I said, the submission to the Fraser Island inquiry sought to treat one group of Australians as intrinsically different from all other Australians. The Premier's proposal did not fly too well. The ambit claims were enormous, and he had to move fast to damp down the backlash that he was inviting. Enter the Cabinet Office and Mr Rudd. Responsibility for land rights was magically transferred from the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, together with the Minister's hard-core land-righters. Responsibility went to a project team in the Cabinet Office. The chief of the social policy branch, Jacki Byrne, was put in charge, with the work being done by people such as the activists Ross Rolfe and Marcia Langton. This cynical Government even went so far as to bring in a leading member of the Cape York Land Council. Noel Pearson was hired as a consultant on a contract, which cost the people of Queensland $750 a day. The aim was to muzzle Mr Pearson or to persuade him to go along with the Premier's back-pedalling exercise. It did not work. Noel Pearson walked out on that cynical exercise. He stuck with his own people, whom he has represented strongly over recent years. But Kevin Rudd was there to ensure that they did not go too far. He was also the one to ram the policy down the throats of the groups who would be most affected, namely, the mining and pastoral industries. And ram the policy he did. Industry delegations were called in and Legislative Assembly 8193 30 May 1991 shown the legislation piece by piece. Although they were asked to comment, they were also warned that it would be more extreme if they objected publicly. One issue was made crystal clear: agree to this, or else. Noel Pearson did not agree to this. It is a pity that the pastoral and mining industries also did not agree to it. Miners and land-holder groups were told that the legislation had to be written fast and passed quickly through the Parliament in order to beat the High Court decision in the Murray Island case, which is commonly known as the Mabo case. They were told that something had to go on the statute book or sensible land rights would be overtaken by Mabo. What rubbish! Mr Nunn: Tell us what you know about it. Mr HOBBS: The honourable member would not know anything about the Mabo case. If the decision goes in favour of the plaintiffs, the principles in the Mabo case do not translate easily to the mainland. Of course, the Premier knows that very well, because part of establishing his Labor credentials involved working on Aboriginal legal aid matters. His former law firm, Goss Downey Carne, had some involvement in the Mabo case. The way in which the Mabo case was used in the discussions with industry groups was certainly deceitful. It was also intimidatory. Intimidation was also used ruthlessly against pastoral groups when they expressed legitimate concern about the amount of land that might be made available for claim. They were told very quickly that stock-routes and other special purpose reserves could be included if they made things difficult. The whole process that has led to the House debating this legislation has been one of deceit. The Minister's people ran about the State telling Aboriginal people that the promised land was about to be delivered. As late as a couple of weeks ago, they even turned up at Doomadgee. They were still up to their old tricks. They told the Kalkadoon people living there that the area containing the proposed Century mine should be claimed. They were deceiving the Kalkadoons, because they knew that the legislation would not provide for that. At the same time, they were deceiving the Government. Mr Hayward: You read that before. Mr HOBBS: No, I did not. In common with their Minister and in spite of Government policy, those public servants were determined to pursue their own agenda. The Bill before the House poses an extreme danger to our traditional system of land management and land tenure. In spite of promises made by Mr Rudd, this Bill also poses great dangers to many current land-owners. The Preamble, the Bill itself and the Minister's second-reading speech leave us in no doubt that Mr Rudd has failed dismally in his task of keeping the lid firmly on extravagant claims. The amendments that the House has passed to the Acts Interpretation Act make that doubly certain. I want honourable members to consider the impact of section 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act when the inevitable cases arising out of this legislation reach the courts. Section 14B makes it clear that extrinsic material may be used in interpretation and lists the extrinsic material that is relevant to those interpretations. It states— "(a) material that is set out in the document containing the text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer." Section 14B (3) (f) states— "(f) the speech made to the Legislative Assembly by the member"—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The honourable member cannot refer to individual clauses. He should just speak around the clause. Mr HOBBS: The sections do not relate to this Bill. They relate to a different Act. Section 14B (3) (f) states— "(f) the speech made to the Legislative Assembly by the member in moving a motion that the Bill be read a second time." Those new provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act invite the courts to consider not only the clauses of this Bill but also the Preamble and the Minister's second-reading speech. The courts of the future are asked to decide that the legislation simply implements Legislative Assembly 8194 30 May 1991 the philosophy expressed in the Preamble and in that speech. It tells the courts that Parliament as a whole adheres to the views expressed there. That, of course, is absolute rubbish! The Opposition certainly does not agree with what is said in the Preamble. It is nothing but socialist, warm-inner-glow nonsense, which may, however, be used in the interpretation of the intent of the Act. How about this: the Preamble states that land in this State was used and enjoyed since time immemorial by Aboriginal people. That sounds very much like the pre-existing title referred to in the departmental submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. If Parliament endorses that paragraph of the Preamble, it invites judges to rule favourably on arguments in favour of pre-existing title. Paragraph 2 of the Preamble refers to land having spiritual, social, historical, cultural and economic importance to Aboriginal people. I submit that land is important for all of those reasons to all Australians. Paragraph 6 of the Preamble talks about Aboriginal people having a requirement for land to ensure—— Mr Booth: They never talk about giving away their own land. The member for Yeronga never said a word about giving away their own land. Mr HOBBS: That is right. They will give away somebody else's land. They are just pirates; that is all they are. They will give away somebody else's land, but not their own. Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much cross-interjection. The honourable member for Cunningham interjected on his own colleague. Mr HOBBS: Paragraph 6 refers to Aboriginal people having a requirement for land to ensure economic and cultural viability. It would be crazy to deny that that applies to everyone. However, not everyone can line up for free land. Paragraph 8 should be thrown out. I, for one, see no truth in what it says. I do not doubt that we need to assist anyone in our community who is disadvantaged, but the principle should be one of equal rights for all. I believe that past laws gave proper recognition to the land needs of the Aboriginal people in this State. I believe that the DOGIT system was the most appropriate system of providing land. So does the Government and so do many Aboriginal people. The Government has stuck pretty close to the essential elements of the DOGIT system. Paragraph 9 is plainly a slur on all of the people of this State—black and white. It seeks a declaration from the Parliament that Aborigines are somehow different from the other people of this State. It seeks a declaration that they are somehow inferior and that they need some sort of paternalistic guidance. That is absolute nonsense. It is time that all Australians woke up to the fact that we are all the same. We cannot go on forever perpetuating divisions in Australian society. There is no longer a place in an Australian Parliament for that sort of discriminatory statement to be made. Where does it end? Will special legislation be introduced for Asians, for north Europeans and for different religions? How else will the Government seek to divide Australians? There is another grave danger in the Preamble. I have already pointed out that judges are invited to take note of it as a guide to interpretation. That could lead to a great widening of the application of the legislation, especially in the current social climate. As a sign of good faith by the Government, the Preamble should be separated from the Bill. The Premier has been trying to score points with middle-of- the-road Queenslanders by painting the Bill as reasonable and restrained. If he is prepared to deal honestly with the people of this State, he will eliminate a certain means for the scope of the legislation to be widened. If the Preamble stays in the Bill, it will not take long for that to happen. Indeed, the Minister has been strutting that line on television. I remind honourable members of what she said last night on the 7.30 Report. Here is the gist of what she said: we have not seen the end of legislation on land rights; this is not the last word. We in the Opposition ask the Minister: what is the last word? What are the changes that she proposes? Legislative Assembly 8195 30 May 1991

The same message came through loud and clear in her second-reading speech. Clearly, she intended that as an argument for future expansion of the scope of land rights. The Premier's men have beaten her for the moment, but she has planted a time bomb. Hansard now records the Minister's clear intention that this is just the start. Let us consider that speech. It is literally riddled with references to prior occupation and to dispossession. In the first three pages of her speech, she mentioned the word "dispossession" five times. That word cropped up repeatedly in her speech. She talked about the burning and bulldozing of homes and the shooting of animals. She talked about brutality. The Minister gave us a litany of emotive words. She wants us wallowing in guilt over what she accuses past generations of doing. I suppose that that is meant to divert us from what she is trying to do and to influence future legal interpretations of what this Parliament set out to do. Her speech lays the foundations for what she will do if her Socialist Left faction finally has its day. With the wimps out of the way, the Bill will be the foundation stone for the real agenda that is spelled out in her speech, for the real agenda that was spelled out at the gates of Parliament and for the real agenda in her department's submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. That real agenda is simple enough to achieve using this legislation along with the Acts Interpretation Act, existing national parks legislation and existing lands legislation. That this is the plan is easily illustrated. The Government issued explanatory papers on the legislation. The contents varied according to who received it. There were two versions: one for the general community and one for the Aboriginal people. Industry groups were reassured that almost nothing would be given away. Mining interests were protected; stock routes were protected; and no urban land would be up for grabs. The total area of the State that would be up for grabs would be only a few per cent. The document sent to Aboriginal groups was very different. Here it is. Let the Government try to deny what is in that paper. In the section headed "New Aboriginal land" the Government promises over 5.5 per cent of the State. That would include the present Aboriginal lands covering 1.8 per cent of the State and the further 1.16 per cent of the State that would initially be made available for claim. Then we come to national parks. I will quote directly from the Government document. It states— "By making national parks available for claim, we are potentially making a further 3.84 million hectares available for claim or 2.2 per cent of the State." That adds up to 5.6 per cent of the State. The document then lets slip something very interesting. It states that the national parks figure would rise commensurate with the Department of Environment and Heritage acquisition program. It is here in black and white. The Minister's mate, the feral cat, had his part to play. He was here a while ago, posturing, raising his eyes to the heavens and trying to show some emotion, yet behind the scenes they used the knife. The document goes on to boast about how the essentials of the Uluru model have been adopted for Aboriginal control of national parks. I do not have to remind members what a shambles that has proved to be. The document continues— " . . . we are potentially opening the way for the application of the Uluru model to literally hundreds of parks." I repeat—hundreds of parks will be handed over, but hopefully not to the Minister's mates who put in such a disgraceful performance here yesterday. The Government said that in this respect potentially it will be the most expansive regime in the country. Members can put money on that. The Minister for Environment and Heritage has already embarked on an extensive program of park acquisition. He has grabbed vast areas of the State from private land-holders. He has taken land from people at prices they were forced to accept under threat. They have lost land that was sacred to them. In many cases, the land has been in their families for generations and their ancestors are buried there. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 8196 30 May 1991

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (3.31 p.m.): The Bill before this House today unquestionably marks one of the most significant milestones in the history of this Legislature. Not since the inception of this House in 1860 have the rights of Aborigines to their traditional lands in Queensland been recognised as they are under this legislation. In so saying, I am cognisant of the fears and concerns with which this Bill is received and is currently regarded by many Queensland Aborigines. I wish to give the House a little background of my involvement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland. I have experiences and associations with Queensland Aborigines and Islanders which are above and beyond the experiences of most other members in this Chamber. For a number of years I have worked in, stayed at and visited all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Queensland. I have visited all provincial towns and met with many of the representative organisations in those parts of the State in which a significant proportion of the indigenous population resides. Over the past two years, in my capacity as the member for Cook, I have worked closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout my electorate, which comprises most of the actual communities in Queensland. I have come to know most of the elders, elected community councillors and members of representative organisations. I do not profess to be an expert on matters relating to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, nor do I claim to fully understand the complex structure of their spiritual beliefs and its entwining with the land. It is ironic for members on the other side of the House to stand up and make exhortations about the structure of complex belief systems and cultural systems which operated amongst Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, because I do not believe that they possess even the limited experience that I possess. In the case of the honourable members for Burnett and Gympie, it is evident from the speeches that they made here today that they have done very little research on the subject. However, I have experiences and associations with Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which go beyond the experiences of most, if not all, the members in this Chamber. It is not my intention during this debate to recount the history of dispossession and deprivation which has been inflicted on Aborigines in Queensland and, indeed, Australia for over two centuries. The member for Yeronga spoke earlier about some of those matters. This is not to ignore or down play the litany of events by which Aborigines have become the most impoverished race in our nation. Rather, in this debate I believe we should look prospectively at what this Bill heralds for the future of Aborigines. In so doing, members and the people of Queensland need to be mindful of the principles which underlie the drafting of this Bill. In presenting this Bill, it is not the intention of the Government to apportion blame or determine responsibility for past wrongdoings. In short, the Bill is not motivated by guilt. I take the points made by several members opposite. They seem to believe that under this legislation this Legislature and the people of Queensland will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of our predecessors. That is not the intention of this legislation. It is not the intention to make people feel guilty or responsible for those past wrongdoings, it is to recognise that those wrongdoings have occurred and to attempt to do something about redressing them. This legislation is inspired by the Government's recognition that the land was occupied by Aborigines for many thousands of years prior to European settlement. For the first time, a Queensland Government has recognised that Queensland laws have failed to take account of the special relationship which Aborigines have with their land. A few moments ago, the member for Warrego referred to the relationship which members, mainly those on his side of the House, have with their land through their involvement with farming and working the land. I find it extraordinary that people who have that association by having lived on and worked with the land for, contextually, the relatively short period in Australian history that they have, cannot recognise that a race of people, who have been here for probably 100 000 years, if not longer—and who live possibly not in the same manner, but certainly use the land in the same way through Legislative Assembly 8197 30 May 1991 farming, working the land and the complex system of land ownership that they had prior to European settlement in Australia—feel dispossessed because they have been forcibly removed from their land. I am not trying to make members feel guilty. I am trying to make them understand that the feelings they have towards their land—and most of them are farmers and would know the feeling—are akin to, although not the same as, the feelings that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have towards their land. I thought that, of all people, members of the National Party would be able to recognise a special relationship with the land. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people have been dispossessed of their land. They talk about the Minister's second-reading speech in which she alluded to people being pushed off their land and having their houses burned. I have spoken to people who have had that happen to them. The Lamalama people from Port Stewart have told me about the way in which they were put off their land and ostensibly taken by boat to hospital on Thursday Island. Before they were out of sight from the shore, their homes had been burnt to the ground. I ask members of the National Party to consider how they would feel if someone came along to, for example, the member for Warwick and said, "Okay, Des, we're going to take you into Warwick for a medical check-up this afternoon", and before he had gone out of sight down the road, his home had been bulldozed and a match had been put to it. Members of the Opposition should stop and think for a moment how they would feel if that happened to them. Let us consider when, if ever, rights to compensation for land are extinguished. It is a fundamental aspect of this debate that the rights of Aboriginal people to their land have not been extinguished by the passage of time, and this must be recognised. Let me cite the example of the Gulf war in the Middle East. The Kuwaitis were taken over by an aggressive, opposing force from a neighbouring country that moved in, took over the land and took over control of the infrastructure. That aggressor forced the Kuwaitis into suppression. What did Australians do? They rallied to that cause and sent Australians to Kuwait to repel the invaders because we recognised Kuwait's sovereignty and the just entitlement of the people to their land. Members of the Opposition are not prepared to recognise those rights in the case of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. They should recognise that the mere passage of time over 200, 300 or 400 years—which is insignificant in the context of the 100 000-odd years that Aborigines have occupied the land—is insignificant, and is insufficient to extinguish their rights to the land. The Aborigines' rights to the land still exist today, and this Government's commitment does not stop at recognising their right to land. This Government has demonstrated that it is prepared to act to begin to remedy those injustices. The figures from the June 1986 census, which were published in the Weekend Australian on 2 February 1991, showed that Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander population comprised 61 200 people. I saw a more recent figure of 66 000 people published in the press, which is approximately 2.4 per cent of Queensland's population. On a State and Territory comparison, Queensland has the largest population of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and Queensland also has one of the highest proportions of Aborigines and Islanders of any State. The article states that as at June 1986, only 5 square kilometres of land was held in freehold title by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Members of the Opposition talk about equal rights for Aborigines. Less than 5 square kilometres of land is owned in freehold title by Aborigines and Islanders, and I ask: what is equal about that? Some of the members of the National Party probably have 100 times—if not 1 000 times—that area in their own farms, yet they talk about equality. Mr Gunn: I worked for it. Mr BREDHAUER: The member for Somerset is holding up his hands and is talking about how hard he worked for his land. Let me tell him that over 100 000 years, Aborigines worked damn hard for their land and they fought and died for it 200 years ago. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders own 8.3 per cent of the total land area of Australia. Leasehold land held by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland amounts to 1.8 per cent, which is basically the DOGIT areas, and a comparison of the Legislative Assembly 8198 30 May 1991 two figures indicates that Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders received a raw deal under successive National Party and coalition Governments that refused to recognise their legitimate claims to land. Under this Bill, the Government will transfer to freehold title all land held under deeds of grant in trust, Aboriginal reserve land and the Aurukun and Mornington Shire leases. The Bill also provides for the Governor in Council to gazette land for claim by Aboriginal groups. Claimable land includes vacant Crown land with some exceptions; beds and banks of watercourses and lakes within the boundaries of available Crown land; and tidal land, where declared by the Governor in Council. I mention those last two categories specifically because they are of considerable significance to Aboriginal groups in my electorate, particularly to those at Aurukun where access to wetland areas is of great importance. Additionally and importantly, national parks are declared as available Crown land. I wish to spend some time discussing national parks because the view has often been expressed to me that Aborigines should be grateful for national parks. Some people regard the declaration of national parks as an attempt to preserve land and the landscapes in their existing state that Aboriginal people may have lived in and worked with over many years. I acknowledge that there is a positive element in that argument, but, nevertheless, national parks have been discussed in an adversarial context by Aborigines, particularly those who live on Cape York Peninsula with whom I am most familiar. There are some pretty good reasons for the way Aborigines feel because, over many years, they have been pushed off their land after national park declarations and have been intimidated by threats of prosecution if they went on to national parks to collect food. One only has to refer to the history of the Archer Bend national park and the Johnny Koowarta case to find an example of the way in which national parks were used by previous Queensland Governments to push Aborigines off their land or deprive them of it. Aborigines have been deprived of the right to hunt, fish, camp, collect food, obtain traditional medicines, and gather material for art and religious purposes from national parks, and this was brought about by the threat of prosecution. Aborigines have found very little security in the concept of national parks as they have been traditionally designated. I have discussed this matter at great length with representatives from many Aboriginal organisations since my election and also with relevant Ministers on a number of occasions. While providing mechanisms for ongoing environmental protection for national parks, which is demanded by the public of Queensland and supported by this Government, the Bill makes considerable concessions. When a national park is granted as Aboriginal land, it must be leased back to the Crown. The Director of National Parks must, in consultation with appropriate Aboriginal groups, draft a plan of management consistent with Aboriginal tradition or traditional activities, including a number of those which I mentioned earlier. The board of management must provide representation for appropriate Aboriginal groups. Under an amendment to be moved later, the board will also be involved in the regular review of the management plan. I welcome some of the statements that were made by the Minister for Environment and Heritage when he spoke this afternoon in the House on this matter. The legislation provides for three grounds on which claims for land can be made: traditional affiliation, historical association, or economic and cultural viability. The member for Yeronga spoke quite eloquently about the significance of the third of those three grounds, claiming economic and cultural viability, and what an important precedent that sets and what a fundamental part of this legislation that aspect is. Successful claims under either of the first two grounds will secure inalienable freehold title, whilst under the third ground an appropriate lease will be granted. A further important facet of the Bill relates to its provisions with regard to mining on Aboriginal land. In essence, for transferred land and claimed land other than that which is claimed on the basis of economic or cultural viability, and also acquired land, the trustees must consent before mining can take place. I stress that this provision gives Aboriginal people significant control over mining on their land, and certainly in excess of that which would normally apply to freehold title under the Mineral Resources Act. Legislative Assembly 8199 30 May 1991

Additionally, the Bill allows the Government to allocate money received by way of royalties under the Mineral Resources Act or the Petroleum Act in relation to Aboriginal land to the grantees of the land for the benefit of Aboriginal people whose land is affected by the mining venture or for the benefit of the Aboriginal people of Queensland. Forestry and quarry rights pertaining to transferred land will be retained by the grantees of the land, unless a special Order in Council reserves those rights to the Crown. Once again, as has been mentioned in this House previously, most recently by the member for Yeronga, those timber and quarry rights were promised by the previous Government under its DOGIT legislation and never delivered, but this Government has delivered. I turn briefly to some of the criticisms by Opposition members and some of the criticisms of the legislation in the media. First of all, I will talk about the attitude of the parties opposite. The attitude of the Nationals and the Liberals on the issue of land rights has been as predictable as it has been disappointing. For all the criticism of our Government by Aboriginal groups, which I acknowledge, the clear message is that neither of the Opposition parties has learned anything about this most fundamental reform in the Queensland Government's policy towards Aborigines, and they have simply regurgitated the same patronising and paternalistic phrases that epitomised their treatment of Aborigines for over 30 years. Their campaign of fear and smear and their attempts to create divisiveness and disharmony in the community have denigrated and demeaned their status as members of the Opposition in this Assembly. I will cite a letter that has been quoted in this House previously. When the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister on 31 May 1990, he said— "Dear Mr Hawke, I respond positively to the Government's commitment to pursue a better understanding of our indigenous people through an educative/consultative process. All Australians can benefit from such an approach with the end result being an increased national pride. There is much to learn from our indigenous people, in particular their total oneness with the land, its plants and animals—a firmly balanced eco-system to which latter day inhabitants cannot aspire." They are the words of the Opposition Leader, Mr Cooper, contained in a letter to the Prime Minister. And what evidence have we had of those sorts of sentiments from the Opposition over the last two months? Absolutely none! He was obviously mouthing meaningless platitudes. He has betrayed that sentiment and cannot be regarded as a man of his word. The Leader of the Liberal Party pathetically attempted to say that Aboriginal people could not be trusted with the land because they could not manage their financial affairs. He pointed to audit reports to try to substantiate his claim. I refer the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Toowong, to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, on which the Liberal Party has a representative. I do not have time to cite the passage that I wanted to include in Hansard, but, if he perused that, he would see some of the underlying causes of the problems of financial accountability. They certainly do nothing to lessen the capacity of Aborigines to manage their land, something they quite effectively managed to do for thousands of years before we came along. Aboriginal land rights is not a panacea for all of the injustices, dispossession and deprivation which has been or is currently affecting Queensland Aborigines. This Government is developing a multifaceted strategy which addresses health, education, housing, industry and training, and other social issues in cooperation with Aboriginal people. To the people who sit on the other side of the House and say that the Bill says nothing about alcoholism and social problems in Aboriginal communities, I point out that that is because it is not a health Bill, it is a land rights Bill. We are here to talk about land. If honourable members want to talk about those matters, they should talk about them in the context of the relevant debate in this House and should not waste the time of the House with those irrelevancies. Legislative Assembly 8200 30 May 1991

Unquestionably, however, the granting of rights to land is the most fundamental reform which our Government can undertake to partially redress injustices of the past and to allow Aborigines to regain self-esteem. Non-Aboriginal Australians must recognise the historical implications on Aboriginal culture of their forced dispossession from their land. Our society must recognise this and commit themselves to supporting this Government's initiative to begin to redress that dispossession. I know that this legislation falls short of the expectations of many Aborigines. The proof of this Bill will, however, be in the commitment of this Government to facilitate the process of transferring and granting land to Queensland Aborigines. The passage of this legislation should not be seen as the end of the land rights process but as the beginning. The Bill does not give land but establishes the legislative framework through which Queensland Aborigines can begin to seek justice in the matter of land. Time expired. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (3.52 p.m.): In 1984, the National Party Government was criticised because it introduced legislation relating to Aborigines in the dead of night. It was criticised for doing that, and I do not deny that the criticism was probably justified. This Bill was also introduced in the dead of night. Government members: Oh! Mr KATTER: That Bill in 1984 was finished in daylight and this Bill will be finished in daylight. The critical difference between the introduction of this Bill and the introduction of the National Party Bill is that the councils, or committees as they then were, which were elected by the people, unanimously agreed with the Bill that the National Party introduced. They did not like all of it, and they said that publicly. However, they said, "We will accept this group of laws and we will trial these laws and see how they go because they seem all right to us. We are prepared to give them a go." That was the attitude that was adopted. Members of the Aboriginal community sat up in the public gallery during the debate and next morning had breakfast with members of the Government. There was a spirit of consultation and coming together to try to achieve a better world for all of us. In sharp contrast, people can keep videotapes of the television footage of the black people who demonstrated when this Bill was introduced. The introduction of this legislation is in keeping with the actions of this Government's Federal counterpart. Sixty-four representations were made to the group that was going around trying to find out for Mr Gerry Hand whether or not the black people wanted ATSIC. Of the 64 groups, 61 rejected the ATSIC proposal outright and 3 sat on the fence. There was total opposition to the introduction of ATSIC. The ALP Federal Government rolled right over the top of the black people and the matters that they had raised. Again, there is almost total disagreement with this legislation amongst the black people of Queensland. I have issued a challenge to members of the Government to provide me with the name of somebody who agrees with this legislation. I give fair warning that whatever name I am given will be given to the Aboriginal councils throughout Queensland. That person can answer to his or her own people for having agreed with this proposal. I hear a thundering silence. There is a lady on the Government side—her name is Lorraine Bird—who is pointing at her head. I do not know whether that is because there is nothing inside it, whether she is indicating insults to me and to the black people in the gallery, or whether she has got a name that she is prepared to give me. I have made an open and friendly offer to the Government to provide me with the name of a single black person in the State of Queensland who agrees with this Bill. I am not going to speak—as I hope some of my colleagues will—about how bad this Bill is for other people in the State of Queensland. I think that as well as being extremely bad for black people, this Bill is extremely bad for other people in Queensland. I do not blame the Minister, because she had nothing to do with this Bill. It was obvious on the 7.30 Report last night that the Minister had nothing to do with the Bill. I suppose it is to her credit that she had nothing to do with it. Yesterday, when Mr Slack and I went to talk to the black people outside Parliament House, they said, "We don't want Legislative Assembly 8201 30 May 1991 to speak with the Minister. What the hell does she count for? She's nothing. This is Mr Goss' Bill." Mr Goss—the very "clever" Premier of this State—has introduced this Bill, and he has pulled the double. I did not think it was possible to get the Aboriginal radicals on the same side as the white radicals. However, Mr Goss has pulled the double. He has managed to get everybody offside with this Bill—except for a couple of people who purportedly represent certain pastoral organisations. I regret what is going to happen to those people when the full ramifications of this Bill become known. I will personally be speaking to the Cattlemen's Union and the UGA branches in my area. I have already heard the disquiet, anger and ugliness that has been expressed in relation to those people. This Bill has pulled a double. It has got everybody offside. I will say a bit more about that later. The Premier was hiding in the parliamentary precinct when all he had to do was go outside and talk to those people. People were dragged away, blood was running in the streets and the Australian flag was being torn down—— Government members interjected. Mr KATTER: I hear the sneers. I notice that when I look towards the back of the Chamber, members of the Government suddenly stop sneering. Mr Davies interjected. Mr KATTER: I was looking for a name. Now I have got one—Ken Davies. The member for Townsville is sitting at the back of this Chamber, laughing and sneering at the suggestion that, yesterday, people were injured in the street. Mr Davies: I am laughing at you, Mr Katter. Mr KATTER: I will be dealing with the member for Townsville before the next election. I suggest that he make the best of his three years in this place. When the Labor Party took office after 30-odd years of National Party Government in this State—the people of Queensland saw fit to give members opposite a go—it took over the laws of Queensland. When the Labor Government took over those laws, the black people of this State who lived on the communities owned those areas. They owned 7 million acres. Admittedly, Aurukun and Mornington Island were on 90-year leases. On many occasions, they were asked to transfer over to perpetual title. For some reason or other, they did not wish to do that. That was their business. However, those people had a 90-year lease. All the rest of the communities owned the land in perpetuity. Those are the laws that this Labor Government took over. Today, those people will cease to own that land. I hope that every person of Aboriginal descent who is in the public gallery hears and understands what I am saying. In the year of our Lord 1991, that 7 million acres was taken back and the ownership of it was vested in the Crown. The Crown can now decide—at its discretion—whom it wants to appoint or not appoint as trustees of that land. I was a Minister in the previous Government for six years and I spent many years on the Government back bench. Previously, the Government said, "What the hell does it matter? We can appoint the people who are on the board. We control the board. It will do as we say." What we have here is a board appointed by the Minister. I am pleased to see that the Minister is laughing and that she finds my comments humorous. If members of the Government do not believe me, they should go and get themselves not one of these parasitical, blood-sucking lawyers who so often crop up in the Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Department but a fair dinkum lawyer and ask him, "Who owns the land now in the State of Queensland?" If someone told me that from now on the Government was going to appoint a trustee to the little bit of dirt that I own up in north Queensland, who would legally own the land and look after it for me but that the trustee would be someone I would like, I would rise up. There would be nothing else that I could do if people were going to take my land away from me like that. Ms Warner: Do you collectively own your land? Legislative Assembly 8202 30 May 1991

Mr KATTER: I take the interjection from the Honourable Minister. There was never any intent in that Bill for collective ownership. It was only ever intended that the councils were to own the land. All I can say is that under the democratic system, every three years the people are able to redress the situation and throw out the local shire councillors and replace them with councillors who are prepared to parcel the land out to private ownership. I can point to many examples where that occurred. I want to cast the minds of members back to when we took office in this place in 1957. When we took office at that time, a person of part Aboriginal descent could be plucked off the street at any time by the police and sent off to an area called a reserve, purely at the discretion of the Department of Native Affairs, as it was then called. There was no appeal against the exercise of that discretion. Upon arrival at the reserve, an order could be given by the reserve superintendent. "Superintendent" was the name given to the person in charge of a gaol in the State of Queensland at that time. An order could be issued by the superintendent—— Mrs Edmond: State or Federal laws? Mr KATTER: The laws enacted by the Labor Party Government in this State. If that direction was disobeyed, the superintendent could administer corporal punishment. A Mr Bird from Cherbourg came to see me. He told me that all of the community was ordered out to see him tied to a telephone pole, have his shirt removed, and be whipped with a leather strap. If members think that I am lying, I remind them that I have named the man and where he can be contacted. Mr Eric Law and Mr Bertie Buttons both know where he lives. This person was not old, he was about 55 or 60 years of age. We are not talking about the deep, dark, distant past, this happened when a middle-aged man was a young man. In those days, a direction could be given and, if it was not carried out, the superintendent could tie an Aboriginal to a telephone pole and belt him with a leather strap. I am ashamed of that because as a Queenslander it gives me no joy to think that in 1957 the Government of this State had not repealed those laws. They were the laws of the State of Queensland. The superintendent could gaol a person without trial, and with no right of appeal. At his discretion. he could gaol a person and put him on a regimen of bread and water for nine days. Unfortunately, a lot of misguided church people were given approval by the Government to remove children from their parents. On a number of reserves there are one and two generations, and in one very sad case, three generations of people whose parents have been removed from the reserves. They simply do not know who their parents were. This is rather intriguing, because some eight of the reserve areas in fact were in this category. How we find out who are the traditional owners of land is an intriguing question. Because the Government plucked people from the Torres Strait and sent them down to Palm Island, and plucked people off the street in Mount Isa and Cloncurry and sent them in chains to Palm Island, we do not know where the hell those people came from. Presumably, there are some traditional owners—— Mr Dollin interjected. Mr KATTER: This is seriously what the Government is proposing. It is proposing that traditional owners of Palm Island be allowed to take over Palm Island. What do we do? Throw the Clays, who are Kalkadoons, the Guyers, who are Kalkadoons, and part Torres Strait Islanders off Palm Island? Do they go back to the Torres Strait and seize the Torres Strait islands? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! If the member for Maryborough wishes to interject, he should do so only from his correct seat. Mr KATTER: You should not worry about flies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not worry about flies. Those were the laws in the State of Queensland under a Labor Government. When the National Party Government came to power it repealed every single one of those laws. I was doing a trip with Les Stewart and I was very surprised at his attitude because, quite frankly, I thought that he may have been a bit of an Uncle Tom. I saw that he had a very genuine commitment to the National Party. I said to Legislative Assembly 8203 30 May 1991 him, "Les, I am very surprised, because very few black people at this time have a commitment to the National Party." He said, "You were too young to remember what it was like under a Labor Government in this State. I wasn't, because I was taken away as a little kid of eight from Camooweal and I never saw my father again ever, nor any of my relatives at Camooweal ever again during the rest of my life." Mr Dollin interjected. Mr KATTER: I am simply quoting what the man said to me. You can call him a liar. Mickey Miller told me the same thing about his parents, and he told me the same thing about the Fridays who live on Palm Island. Such things were done constantly under the laws of Queensland laid down by the Labor Party. Within 15 months of the Labor Party's re-election, it has taken ownership from the black people and taken it upon itself. Now it owns the land. If Aborigines trust anyone else to own their land, all I can say is they are a very foolish group of people. Prior to 1957, Queensland law did not allow a black person working in the State of Queensland to receive his own wages. He had to go along to the Department of Native Affairs agent, who was usually the local policeman and typically did not enjoy a good relationship with people of Aboriginal descent, and tell him on what he wanted to spend his own wages. That was the law in Queensland. Black people were banned from drinking. If a person had a mate who was black, and they had been out ringing together or just finished a droving trip, the white person could go into the hotel but the black person could not. He had to stay outside. The white person had to bring something out to the black, and even that was illegal. Those were the enlightened laws of Queensland under the Labor Party. Obviously the leopard has not changed its spots, because there are some people out there who are educated and can think and they are not hoodwinked by the glib words of some city carpetbaggers. They know that their land is being taken away from them. I do not know how many more martyrs we need to prove a point to the Government, but within six months of the National Party Government's handing over Yarrabah to the black people the ALP Labor Government in Canberra had taken half of it back again. That had an awful lot to do with the death of Peter Noble, who was then the chairman of the Yarrabah council. He somehow blamed himself because he could not figure out how the Government in Canberra had managed to thieve back half his land which he had owned since time immemorial. The first time it was taken off him was in 1989. I will move on. The proposal here is for traditional land rights, I have some great difficulty working out how we are going to decide who owns a place like Palm Island, for example. I pointed out that most of the population of Palm Island comes from my own home area, the Kalkadoon area around Cloncurry and Mount Isa, and from the Torres Strait. There must be some traditional owners of Palm Island. One can imagine the sort of venomous infighting, racial squabbles and, if you like, tribal squabbles that will occur on that island when the people who have lived there for three and four generations suddenly see the right to their own home on Palm Island assailed by people who have probably not lived there for two or three generations. I am told that many of the original owners of Palm Island live in places such as Cherbourg and Woorabinda. Last year, the Australian of the Year, Professor Ted Fellows, appeared on television debating with a person who could be described as an Aboriginal activist. She said, "We will never be successful until we get back to the old laws. Our young people must be made to go back to the old laws." He said to her, "Lady, if you are going to force young people who live in your area away from their television sets, away from their discos and away from watching the State of Origin football matches, you have got rocks in your head." That man is universally respected for his viewpoint. He was saying that the clock cannot be turned back. If people are told that it can be turned back, they are being told lies. The demonstration that occurred in front of Parliament House was all about telling lies to people. I do not know to whom the Government has listened. Some 12 000 or 15 000 people in the Aboriginal communities voted in elections to elect their various shire Legislative Assembly 8204 30 May 1991 council representatives. They spoke in a democracy and elected their representatives. Those elected became community councillors. In other areas, they would be called shire councillors. Those elected representatives come together in a body called the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. That council is totally opposed to this legislation. The Government did not even have the sensitivity to say that it consulted with the ACC. On the list of people with whom the Government said it consulted, the ACC is ominously left off completely. In that regard, I refer to the letter that the ACC sent to Mr Goss. I do not know whether the Government consulted or not. All I know is that the letter that the ACC chairman, Mr McLean, sent to Mr Goss stated that the ACC was never consulted. The Government's official directive that was circulated stated that the ACC was not consulted. What sort of a Government is it that does not consult with the elected people from all of those areas? Who the hell did the Government consult with? I can tell the House who they consulted with, but I do not want to be unkind or say nasty things about people. They are the greatest bunch of carpet- bagging people who have failed to be elected anywhere on any council in the State of Queensland and are people who could not be taken seriously in any society in this State, most certainly not in the societies in the communities of Cape York Peninsula. Ms Warner: Name names! Mr KATTER: I said that I would not name names. I will let the Minister find out for herself who they are. We can all read the consultancy list that was circulated. We know with whom the Government consulted. Mr Nunn: It never stopped you in the past. Name one! Mr KATTER: In answer to the interjection, let me cite the case of Mick Miller. He was a person who year after year went out into the streets and demonstrated against the Government. I followed Mick at one of the boarding schools in north Queensland. While at boarding school, he had two reputations. The first was that while he was there, no young kid was bullied. Whenever a fight occurred, he put himself between anyone who was big and anyone who was small. Secondly, he was a great football-player. When I attended the school, he was greatly revered and admired. He was a legend and a hero. He saw the injustices of the Act that existed prior to 1957. When it was not popular to do so, he went out into the streets and demonstrated. Quite frankly, people such as I despised him. We felt that he was treacherous and traitorous to the people of Queensland. We did not understand what was happening. It was only later when we learned what was happening that Mick Miller became—and I say this in all fairness to him, whatever his shortcomings might be—a hero. I asked him, "What is this land council about?" His answer was, "Anybody who purports to represent a black person and who is actually being directed by a white person, I view with suspicion." Time expired. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (4.12 p.m.): I rise to speak in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge that my electorate includes Musgrave Park and a large number of urban blacks who have a particular interest in the outcome of this Bill and in the welfare of Aboriginal people. Having listened to some of the earlier debate, I have to say that Aboriginal people will be somewhat disappointed by what has taken place in this Chamber. I guess it is true to say that, when it comes to Aboriginal people, Queensland has a very poor track record. I do agree with one matter that was raised by the honourable member for Flinders, namely, that relating to the history of Labor Governments in this State. I am embarrassed by the track record of Labor when it was in Government prior to 1957. It was a disgraceful record. In 1991, no Labor Party member can be proud of what the Labor Party did prior to 1957. To that extent, I agree with Mr Katter. However, neither can any person be proud of what took place in this State between 1957 and 1989 under the National/Liberal Party and under the National Party. For far too long, Aboriginal people in Queensland have been Legislative Assembly 8205 30 May 1991 political footballs. It is about time that we got away from the hysterical debate that was started by the honourable member for Burnett when this debate was resumed. Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I want to deal with some of the things that he said. On behalf of the National Party, along with the Liberal Party, he opposed the Bill. They have opposed the concept of land rights. He said, "We cannot reverse the past." He refused to acknowledge any guilt for what had happened. The genocide of Aboriginal people in Queensland and in other parts of Australia is a matter of shame for our whole society—for white society. I think that, in the sobering moments in this debate, we should say so. The granting of land rights goes some way—a very tiny way—to erasing some of that shame. But it will never be totally removed. As a Parliament and as a Government, we need to do what we can to give Aboriginal people an opportunity to have some integrity, some self-respect, some self- determination and human dignity. They are the fundamental principles of any modern society. Quite frankly, it is long overdue. What we have in this debate is simply cheap, political point-scoring. In the past two days, members have heard the humbug from Opposition members about the demonstrations that have taken place outside this Parliament House. The point is that if any member of this House was part of a race that had been subjected to the genocide to which Aboriginal people have been subjected, he or she would have been standing outside protesting, too. Opposition members cannot be proud of what they did during the past 32 years. I refer honourable members to the history of white Europeans in this country and the history of the Irish, the Celts and the Scots. They have adopted a strong view in relation to what the English did to them in Great Britain. If any member of this House were an Aboriginal person, he or she would have been standing out there as well. Although I do not condone the damage that was done to the property, I defend the right of those people to be there. Some smart alec from the National Party said, "In our days, they were not out there." Do members know why? Because in those days there were no street marches. People were not allowed to march. They had no opportunity for free speech in this State. Members of the National Party are frauds and humbugs. It is about time that they started considering what is important. Honourable members should not lose sight of whom they are considering. They must not lose sight of the real issue, that is, the circumstances that will assist Aboriginal people and do something to make up for what has happened in the past. During my preparation for this debate, I perused various publications. A statement that is worth repeating for the benefit of National Party members appears on page 74 of Evan Whitton's book The Hillbilly Dictator. This is the legacy that Mr Katter has to deal with. Whitton states— "There seemed no limit to Bjelke-Petersen's use of the politics of paranoia. Perhaps judging that giving Aborigines rights to sacred lands might interfere with 'development', and disremembering his own plan to make Queensland a separate nation, he said in 1982 that the land rights movement was a Communist-inspired plot to create a separate nation within Australia. The World Council of Churches sent a team to examine treatment of Aborigines; he said the council was a sinister, Communist-led organisation." That is an example of the intolerance that existed within the National Party. Let us not have any more humbug. Let us deal with the real issues as they should be dealt with. As to the cause of Aboriginal people—one of the people who has shown leadership in Australia's political history is former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who has an impressive record in this field. Everyone in the party to which I belong is proud of that record. I intend to deal with some of Mr Whitlam's statements, because I believe that they are relevant to this legislation. Mr Elliott: Are you happy with the outcome in the Northern Territory? Mr BEATTIE: I will come to the Northern Territory. The honourable member should not be impatient. In a document titled Reform During Recession, which was the Legislative Assembly 8206 30 May 1991 inaugural T. J. Ryan lecture, Gough Whitlam said—and I guess that this is really a response to the interjection— "Conservatives are hysterical over Aboriginal land rights particularly where the land contains diamonds, as in Western Australia, or uranium, as in the Northern Territory". Gough Whitlam was smart enough to seize the heart of the opposition to land rights from conservation people. During a speech that Mr Whitlam made in Cairns on 21 January 1977 to a land rights conference of the North Queensland Land Rights Committee, he made some very important points that I believe are relevant to this debate. He referred to the history of how this all developed. The following is the record of what Gough Whitlam said— "In July 1768 the British Admiralty issued Captain Cook with the following secret instructions: 'You are to observe the genius, temper, disposition and number of the natives if there be any and endeavour by all proper means to initiate a friendship and alliance with them, making them presents of such trifles as they may value . . . You are also with the consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situations in the country in the name of the King of Great Britain . . .' It is a matter of historical record that (Aborigines) were forcibly dispossessed of the one material possession of great significance to them—their land. It is taking us a long time to redress that injustice. Many other countries including New Zealand and the United States recognised the land claims of their original inhabitants years ago." Let us not forget that this was said in 1977. Gough Whitlam continued— "Australia is doing so belatedly. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 will be recorded as the first statutory recognition of Aboriginal land rights to be passed by Parliament since federation." Later on in that address Mr Whitlam dealt with the Labor Party's proud record on this issue at the Federal level. The address continued— "The record of indifference and inactivity"— on the land rights issue— "continued until Labor came into power in 1972. In my policy speech for the 1972 election I pledged that a Labor government would: 'Legislate to establish for land in Commonwealth territories which is reserved for Aboriginal use and benefit a system of Aboriginal tenure based on traditional rights of clan and other tribal groups and under this legislation vest such land in Aboriginal communities. Establish an Aboriginal Land Fund to purchase or acquire land for significant continuing Aboriginal communities.' In its term of office, twice cut short by the conservative controlled Senate, the Labor Government implemented both these promises. Two months after my Government was elected, Mr Justice Woodward was commissioned to inquire into the best means of recognising and establishing the traditional land rights of Aborigines. He presented his final report in April 1974 and recommended that Aboriginal land rights legislation should be introduced into the Australian Parliament and that it should not be capable of being affected by Northern Territory ordinances. He also recommended that an Aboriginal Land Commission be established in the Territory to assist Aborigines in laying claim to traditional land and in investigating these claims." I conclude my quotes from that address by referring to two relevant quotes that appear on the final page of the transcript. Mr Whitlam said— "We can put this country firmly back on the path of redressing two centuries of injustice and repression." Legislative Assembly 8207 30 May 1991

He stated finally— "The fight is one for all Aborigines and for all Australians who believe in justice and value their country's good name." That is central to the issue of land rights. In his book entitled The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, which was published in 1984, Mr Whitlam said— "Aboriginal voting rights constitute one major point of resistance by conservative governments. Aboriginal land rights constitute the other. From the earliest years of European settlement Aborigines were regarded as trespassers and poachers in their own country. By the end of the third quarter of the 19th century Western European settlers had acquired in most parts of Australia, as in the US, Canada, and Argentina, all the land which they thought they could use for agricultural and pastoral purposes, with titles and without compensation. In Western Australia and the Northern Territory the last police massacres occurred as recently as 1928. By 1960 there was renewed interest in much of the land which only Aborigines occupied in Australia, whether or not whites held title to it, because that land was believed and often found to contain mineral and energy resources. White landowners became paranoid at the thought that their tenure of agricultural, pastoral and mineral lands would be jeopardised if the traditional rights of the continent's original inhabitants are examined and recognised. The electoral laws of Queensland and Western Australia gave dominant political influence to those white landowners." That is the sad legacy with which we in Queensland are confronted today. I turn to the issue of land rights themselves and the Aboriginal relationship with land. I do that because I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for Burnett question the whole concept of the necessity for land rights. Of all the relationships that Aboriginal people have had, the most important is that which binds them to a particular tract of land which is their country. That is a religious and spiritual bond. Even when Aborigines had been dispossessed of their land, they retained their sense of place. That affinity means that, without their land, they cannot be whole people. They need their land if they are to have their full dignity, pride and social standing restored to them. The viability of an Aboriginal cultural identity is integrally related to their association with the land. Land is also needed in the more accepted Western sense as an economic base. Land with secure title will provide that base to the descendants of people who once occupied all of Australia and will provide an element of compensation for land that cannot now be returned. Of all of the injustices that have been done to Aborigines, dispossession of their land is the loss that they feel most keenly. For nearly 200 years, Aborigines have been dispossessed of their land and their identity. Recognition of the source of that cultural identity—that is, land—will contribute substantially to the restoration of dignity and self-directed efforts to overcome ill health, poor education and unemployment. The list goes on. A secure land base will make that effort easier. Governments will still need to help, but Aborigines themselves will achieve the real improvement in the conditions of their own lives. A resurgence in Aboriginal pride, identity and independence has been the direct result of the granting of land rights in other States and in the Northern Territory—that is the point that the honourable member for Cunningham asked me about before. That is because secure title to land helps to provide Aboriginal people with their social and economic base that was denied to them by the dispossession and dispersal that resulted from European occupation. Through recognition of Aboriginal interests in land, Aboriginal communities have been able to re-establish their spiritual links with the land, to restore a measure of traditional authority and discipline among the young, and to improve their health, social well-being and self-confidence. The granting of land means that Aboriginal people have control over their lives—they can control access to their land, have the right to negotiate the terms and conditions upon which mining and other activities may proceed on their land, and are able to direct the spending of revenue raised from mining on their land for the benefit of the Aboriginal communities negatively affected by that mining. It is also notable that, in other States, there have been considerable benefits to non-Aboriginal people. In particular, the burgeoning tourist industry in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 8208 30 May 1991 and other States is heavily dependent on the Aboriginal cultural dimension. This year, I accompanied the Honourable Pat Comben on a visit to Kakadu—the honourable member for Cook was with me on that trip—and had lengthy discussions with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. One can see clearly what a significant benefit the granting of land rights has been to the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. My only conclusion is that anyone who cannot see the benefit that comes directly to Aboriginal people from land rights in that area is blind, deaf and dumb, racist or bigoted. A Government member: Or all of the above. Mr BEATTIE: Or all of the above. Aboriginal culture has survived for at least 40 000 years by its ability to change with the times. In the past 200 years, that ability has been seriously tested. Aboriginal people have had difficulty coming to terms with a dominating and, what was to them, alien culture, particularly as that culture largely denied them so much of what was basic to the continuation of their traditions, life-style and living. As in many cultures, land was basic to the Aboriginal way of life. Land was also the spiritual base of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal people have adapted to the changes in their land in the past 200 years. To restore to them the right to control their own lives, their dignity and their freedom, their cultural base—that is, land—must in part be restored to them. That does not mean that the Aboriginal people will step back into the timeless world that they once inhabited. However, they will have the opportunity to make decisions on an equal footing with all other Australians in accordance with their traditions, chosen life-style and cultural identity. It is also wrong to see the benefits of land rights and the promotion of Aboriginal cultural identity as confined to Aborigines. The maintenance of the oldest living culture in the world is a heritage that all Queenslanders can be proud of and benefit from. It is the diversity of the cultural composition of Queensland society and the special place of Aboriginal culture within it that is one of Queensland's unique and most valuable assets. Rather than attempting to subjugate and destroy the Queensland Aboriginal heritage and identity, we should respect it. This legislation is based on that premise. The Aboriginal Land Bill is based on the premise that the recognition of Aboriginal interests in and responsibility for land is an essential component of the long- term maintenance and regeneration of the Aboriginal culture. Recognition of these interests and responsibilities offers to Aboriginal people the hope of a basis upon which to shape a viable future for themselves and their children. It is therefore crucial that the development and implementation of policy in relation to land enables Aboriginal people to have secure title to areas of land that are significant to them and to manage the land and its resources in accordance with their own cultural values and objectives. This does not imply that Aboriginal people will be frozen into traditional patterns of land usage. On the contrary, many Aboriginal people are interested in diverse forms of contemporary land use. However, Aboriginal people, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, are responsible for the landscape for which they hold custodial responsibilities. For this reason and because of the structure of Aboriginal society, negotiations can be complex and time-consuming. We have to be tolerant, and we have to understand that. The policy therefore provides for the exercise of considerable flexibility in the management of the land and its resources by its Aboriginal owners. The grant of land alone will not ensure the viability of groups or communities of Aboriginal people. There are many other factors that directly affect the viability of Aboriginal groups who gain access to land; and many Aboriginal people in Queensland will not be in a position to make claims under this legislation. Even for those who do make successful claims, gaining rights to land is but one step, but it is of critical importance in restoring the viability of the group. Other policies will need to be developed to meet the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal groups in a range of circumstances. I conclude by saying that for too long Aboriginal people have been political footballs. It is about time that all parties in this Parliament put aside their disgraceful track records of the past and looked fundamentally at what is important—Aboriginal people. Legislative Assembly 8209 30 May 1991

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.32 p.m.): It is interesting to contrast the approach and style of debate adopted by the member for Flinders against that of the member for Yeronga. I was interested to listen to the member for Flinders. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fassifern, who is the leader of Opposition business in this House, the late Doug Jennings, who was the former member for Southport, the former member for Toowoomba North, Sandy McPhie, and I were all members of Bob Katter's committee when he was the Minister. In my opinion he did a tremendous job under very difficult circumstances. At that time he was being undermined by the then director of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. Every time he tried to do something, departmental people went to the Premier via the back door and undermined what he was doing. It was fortunate that Mr Katter had people of the calibre of Doug Jennings on his committee. All members who knew Doug over the years and worked with him realised what an outstandingly strong person he was. No member on either side of politics would argue with that fact. Doug displayed that courage in Victoria when he was a member of that State's Parliament. He brought down the Victorian Government at that time because of its association with land deals. He threatened the Premier of Victoria that, if he did not do something about the matter and move against those responsible, Doug would go into the House and blow the issue wide apart. He gave them fair warning and then he did it. That is the calibre of man that Doug Jennings was. When he came to Queensland and ran for the seat of Southport, people ridiculed him and asked if he knew which street was the main street of Southport. Being the honest fellow that he was, Doug said that he did not have a clue. I thought that he would never win the seat, but he did. People saw him for what he was. He was a tower of strength when he worked on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander committee with us, as were many other members who had a fair degree of experience in other areas. The committee gave Bob a lot of support in the party room and elsewhere. We agonised long and hard over how we should handle the Aboriginal land problem. None of us was satisfied with the old system. We all felt it was decades out of date and needed updating. As a result, the deed of grant in trust legislation was developed. As Bob indicated in this House today, many people in Aboriginal communities would have liked us to go further. They had the opportunity to have an input into that legislation and they understood what we were trying to do. Bob Katter had the total respect of the Aboriginal community. Members witnessed it here the other day. I was down there with him at the demonstration, as was the Opposition spokesman, Mr Doug Slack, the member for Burnett. Bob was not there trying to incite the Aboriginal people to violence. Anyone who saw what happened would know only too well what it was all about. Bob Katter liaised with the Minister and the Aboriginal people at the demonstration and was responsible for arranging for them to have an audience with the Premier. The Premier was not game to go out there. He skulked around in the safety and security of the parliamentary quadrangle where no-one could get to him and then he bucketed the Aboriginal people on television. That is the difference in attitudes, approach and style. I agree with the member for Flinders that this legislation turns the clock back. Under the deed of grant legislation the thrust of the National Party—in spite of vitriolic attack from various quarters at the time—was to ensure that those people were responsible for their own destiny. They had responsibility for their own land. They could take over and ensure its viability. There are many examples of people who have done exactly that and have successfully run cattle on the land. Another good example is the Torres Strait fishing cooperative that formerly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars—perhaps millions of dollars. When the National Party Government introduced deeds of grant in trust, it began to make a profit. The significant difference in the approach adopted by the National Party was that, for the first time in the history of the Aboriginal and Islander people, they were made to feel that someone actually believed in them and wanted to hand them control of their destiny and their businesses. This Government will have some bureaucrat or ministerial adviser looking over their shoulder and telling them what to do. A Government member: You're a hypocrite. Legislative Assembly 8210 30 May 1991

Mr ELLIOTT: Unfortunately, members of the Labor Government are hypocrites. Before the member for Yeronga was elected to this Parliament, I used to see him on television. I have been a member of Parliament for a reasonable period and after he became a member of Parliament, I began to wonder what type of fellow he is. He always seemed to be standing up for the downtrodden, but I would describe him as the ultimate disappointment in this debate. A Government member: Why? Mr ELLIOTT: Because he pontificated for 20 minutes. Mrs Bird: You're not speaking to the Bill. Mr ELLIOTT: I am replying to something that was said to me. The member for Whitsunday did not look very smart after she transmitted her interjection by mental telepathy to the member for Flinders. If I were she, I would stick to my own electorate and worry about the masthead race and a few other problems in her area. It was interesting that not only did the member for Yeronga pontificate and waffle on, but also he was not able to say in 20 minutes what he wanted to say. In an ultimate display of arrogance, he moved for an extension of time. In my 17 years as a member of Parliament, I have never seen a member do that before. I am amazed that a person of his reputation and background does not better understand what is happening in this House. I thought he would stand up and be counted and resist this legislation that will turn back the clock. This legislation places a heavy onus on the Minister. To the Minister's credit, I believe that she does not have her heart in it. She has been told by Wayne Goss how to run the race. Mr Booth: They are her riding instructions. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right; but, unfortunately, they do not cover what she wants to do. At a later date, the Minister may make some changes if the opportunity presents itself. I have never seen a more reprehensible approach than that adopted by this Government in breaking pre-election promises to the Aboriginal and Islander people that the necessary action would be taken to convert their land holdings to freehold title. This legislation turns back the clock. I invite the Minister to refer to clause 3.02 and then tell me that this legislation does not turn back the clock. The previous Government's approach provided Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders with a better arrangement. When the member for Flinders, Bob Katter, was the Minister for Northern Development and Community Services, he was making progress in ensuring that Aboriginal communities would have control over their own destinies. This Government has turned back the clock by reverting control to the department. Mr Welford: You never gave them land rights. Mr ELLIOTT: The member should not try to tell me about this matter because I know something about it. One of the few people on the Government side of the Chamber who knows anything about this matter is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. He has travelled extensively throughout the communities and has tried to do something positive. He knows how difficult it is to bring about improvement. Another member who would know something about the problems is the member for Barambah because he, together with the member for Townsville, accompanied the chairman on most of his visits to Aboriginal communities. People such as the member for Yeronga who live in ivory towers have no understanding of what the issues are all about. Mr Foley: I spent four years in the Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service working as a social worker. Do you withdraw that remark? Mr ELLIOTT: That is very commendable and I am pleased to hear it. Unfortunately, the Opposition's disappointment in you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—has come Legislative Assembly 8211 30 May 1991 about since you became a member of this Parliament. The honourable member has become a tame cat who mouths platitudes. Mr BARBER: I rise to a point of order. The speaker is not addressing the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! There is no point of order. Mr ELLIOTT: Only a second ago I said, "Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker". How else could I address the Chair? The member for Yeronga is a disappointment to this Parliament because since he has become a member he has lost sight of his principles. Mr Foley: If I am a disappointment to you, I must be doing something right. Mr ELLIOTT: I will not waste time arguing with the honourable member. I want to say to everyone present in the Chamber—particularly those people in the public gallery who are interested in this legislation—that by introducing this legislation members of the Labor Party have turned back the clock. The Minister is not advancing the cause of Aborigines and Islanders at all. The Minister has duped them. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have demonstrated their displeasure and disappointment at the broken promises of this Government. Although I do not support the action taken by Aboriginal groups yesterday in the parliamentary precinct, it was hardly surprising that they acted in that way. I found it abhorrent and I do not believe they advanced their cause. In fact, I believe it was a dreadful mistake. What I am saying is that the Labor members of this Parliament are not advancing the cause of Aboriginal and Islander people who were better off under deeds of grant in trust. I do not wish to take up any more time of the House. Most of the points that I wanted to raise have already been raised by the very capable Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Flinders and other speakers. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (4.45 p.m.): In February of this year, the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Tickner, released a discussion paper entitled Aboriginal Reconciliation. This discussion paper proposed a strategy for achieving reconciliation and social justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Mr Tickner has indicated that the reconciliation process would need to educate non- Aboriginal Australians about the culture of Australia's indigenous peoples and the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by European settlers and their descendants. The discussion paper stated— "This sad history which includes the dispossession and dispersal of Aboriginal people, confinement in reserves, removal of children from their families and the destruction of much Aboriginal culture needs to be recognised as a primary cause of the current disadvantaged position of Australia's indigenous peoples." All Australians need to understand this country's past and the place of Aboriginal people in it. The discussion paper continued— "This would have the objective of not creating guilt but of building compassion and empathy for Aboriginal people and their disadvantaged position in society, as well as appreciation of Aboriginal culture and achievements and the unique position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as indigenous people of this continent." It is significant that Commissioner Johnston, QC, in the final volume of his report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, concluded with a chapter on the process of reconciliation. His final recommendation 339 reads— ". . . that all political leaders and their parties recognise that reconciliation between the Aboriginal and non Aboriginal communities in Australia must be achieved if community division, discord and injustice to Aboriginal people are to be avoided." I believe that the legislation being debated today is a vital part of that reconciliation process in Queensland. This may seem a brave or, indeed, foolish thing to say in the light of the strong negative reaction on the part of some Aboriginal and Islander people Legislative Assembly 8212 30 May 1991 to this legislation that we are debating today and of the demonstrations that we have witnessed outside this House. But events are frequently interpreted differently with hindsight. Reform that is difficult to discern in the emotionally charged atmosphere of today will, I believe, be very clear when the history of the Queensland land rights legislation is written. The Bill before the House represents a fundamental change of direction with respect to land rights policy that will enable Queensland legislation to accord more closely with that of the Commonwealth model which is widely respected and which follows the recommendations of Commissioner Johnston, QC. Again, that recommendation reads— ". . . that in all jurisdictions legislation should be introduced where this is not already occurring to provide a comprehensive means to address lands needs of Aboriginal people. Such legislation should encompass a process for restoring unalienated Crown land to those Aboriginal people who claim such land on the basis of cultural, historical or traditional association." Thus this legislation, for the first time in Queensland, recognises the traditional relationship that exists between Aboriginal people and their land. The final trustees of the DOGIT and reserve lands will be those who have demonstrated and acknowledged traditional or historical affiliation with that land. The member for Flinders was most mischievous in misleading people by suggesting that it was going to be held by the Crown. The legislation also provides for the recognition that traditional ownership entail traditional responsibilities to the land. This legislation therefore validates a conception of the relationship of indigenous Australians to the land that was explicitly rejected by the last Government. By implication, this legislation acknowledges the fact that sacred sites which underpin traditional Aboriginal life are best cared for and preserved by the Aboriginal owners living nearby them and carrying out the ceremonies for them. In fact, it has been suggested—I agree with the suggestion—that all other aspects of welfare of Aboriginal society depend on this. The legacy of the last Government provides for a form of representative democracy on communities which is totally foreign to traditional Aborigines and which has demonstrably failed—and I do not say that lightly. Ask the victims of violence on Aboriginal communities and they will confirm my assessment, as does the report of the Public Accounts Committee. It is a failure because it is based on an assimilation model that has always been the policy of the National Party and which this Government rejects totally. The present situation in communities on Cape York reflects the fact that traditional authority structures no longer exist, and many of the problems being experienced in those communities can be seen to be related in large measure to the break-down of such traditional authority and the undermining of any meaningful role for men in those communities in the context of traditional Aboriginal society. The so-called deed of grant in trust legislation also falls short of the inalienable freehold title desired by Aborigines and which is delivered by this legislation. In addition, we have heard how it ensures that timber and quarry rights will be included, something that was promised but not delivered by the previous Government. Also delivered by this legislation are mining royalties which have never been available to Aboriginal communities before, despite the dispossession of their land that they have suffered at the hands of mining companies. Ask the people at Mapoon who had to watch as their homes were burnt to make way for mining. This legislation also provides for something that the previous Government would never have considered—a mechanism whereby land can actually be claimed as opposed be given at Government whim. The previous Government never recognised the legitimate right of Aboriginal people—indigenous people—to make any such claim to land. Moreover, Queensland will lead the way in providing a comprehensive set of three criteria for Aboriginal people to advance their interest in land. Those are described in clause 4.03 as traditional affiliation, historical association, and economic or cultural viability. That third criterion exists in no other State. Thus urban Aborigines who no Legislative Assembly 8213 30 May 1991 longer have traditional or historical affiliation to the land can claim vacant Crown land for economic, social or community purposes as recommended by Commissioner Johnson in his report. I would like now to outline briefly the benefits of this legislation for the Aboriginal people in my electorate of Barron River. The Mossman River and Daintree Valley area was occupied by the Kuku Yalanja people when European settlement began. Their experiences at the hands of white people were similar to those of Aborigines everywhere: forced removal to reserves and missions with subsequent loss of traditional hunting and camping grounds, employment for rations, and forced removal to the penal colony of Palm Island for any minor offence. Eileen McNamara, the matriarch of the Mossman Gorge community, has vivid childhood memories, and I quote— " 'As a little girl I was always afraid of the police. Sometimes they come creeping up on the camp and grab any half cast children they find and take them away. We would never see them again. Why they do that to us???' The women would have special large dilly-bags handy all the time. When the police came to camp they would either flee to the bush or hide their little ones inside the dilly-bags until the danger had passed." That is a living memory of people within my electorate. The Kuku Yalanji in my electorate will finally achieve social justice because the legislation that honourable members are debating today will enable them to obtain title to the land on which they live in the Mossman Gorge. No longer will they live in fear of removal by Government decree, as they do at present. In addition, they will be able to gain title to the Daintree national park, which surrounds them and which contains many sacred sites. It will therefore facilitate cultural revival of the Kuku Yalanji people. There are many elders who are sustained only by the hope of regaining their land, and, as they have said, if they lose these places, their young people will have nothing left. While there are undoubted benefits to be gained from this legislation by the Mossman Gorge community, the demonstrations outside this Parliament are testament to the dissatisfaction of other Aboriginal groups with this legislation. I must make mention of that. Members on the Government side are well aware of the additional elements that some Aborigines would have liked to have seen in the Government's land rights package. The proposal for a land acquisition fund derived from State land tax and a veto on mining on Aboriginal land are just two such elements. Given the philosophical and ideological commitment of members of the Government to land rights, it is reasonable to ask why these things could not be delivered. To explain, it is necessary to remind honourable members of the process of reconciliation to which I referred at the outset. The fundamental aspect of this process involves a coordinated campaign to build better bridges of understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. I am sad to say that an examination of the bridges of understanding in far-north Queensland would reveal very shaky structures indeed. For example, last year, two hotels in Mareeba consistently refused to serve Aboriginal people. The case was brought before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Seven Aborigines were subsequently awarded compensation and the managers were ordered to issue a public apology. The outcome of that action resulted in an explosion of racist sentiment in the media. It was even said that vigilante-type groups were formed in the style of the Ku Klux Klan. I cite this as just one example amongst many to illustrate the sad state of race relations in far-north Queensland and, I suspect, in Queensland as a whole. My point is that the people of Queensland are not yet ready for a more radical form of land rights. Any attempts to deliver the kind of package that some members of the Aboriginal community would like to see delivered would only divide the Queensland community in a way that would put back black/white relations for years. Already, too many Queenslanders seem to believe that Aboriginal people have too many privileges, despite the fact that they are the most disadvantaged members of the community on any indicators—housing, health, education or employment. I believe that that is a legacy of National Party brainwashing. The divisiveness, anger and even hatred that would be Legislative Assembly 8214 30 May 1991 stirred up by more radical reform would be totally counter-productive to the Government's aim of social justice for Aboriginal people. Indeed, I believe that the opposition would be so great that our attempts at reform would be swept away by the Nationals as the people of Queensland would return them to office on the platform of repealing such land rights legislation, so completely has the National Party propaganda succeeded. Although the Government can legislate to prohibit and punish racial discrimination, it cannot legislate for a change of attitudes whereby non-Aborigines will respect and value Aboriginal people and their culture. At the outset, I said that this legislation is the first step in the reconciliation process, because it is a clear signal that the Government does acknowledge an ancient, complex and spiritually rich culture, which has occupied this land for in excess of 40 000 years. I ask that Aboriginal people put aside their anger and work with the Government on building those bridges between themselves and the non-Aboriginal community, because the sooner those bonds of respect and friendship are formed, the sooner the Government can review this land rights legislation and offer more to Aboriginal people. Aborigines could first target their efforts on the relationship between themselves and conservationists. It is ironic that the leadership of the conservation movement has indicated very clearly their support for this land rights legislation. In a letter to the Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette, the campaign manager for the ACF, Mark Horstman, stated— "This principles of hand-back, lease-back and joint management are appropriate because they reflect sound conservation management practices where environmental objectives are kept pre- eminent. They also meet the aspirations of Aboriginal people to preserve Aboriginal cultural values and address the imperatives of social justice." Unfortunately, those sentiments are not echoed by the grassroots members of conservation groups in Queensland and, in particular, far-north Queensland. I am deeply disappointed in some of my own friends on this issue. I respect their commitment to nature conservation, but it saddens me that they cannot embrace land rights for Aboriginal people as an act of social justice and recognise that land rights can go hand in hand with nature conservation. The Cairns branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society appears to operate on the premise that conservation of natural areas is incompatible with their utilisation by Aboriginal people. The evidence from around the world says otherwise. In America, Canada and Africa there are countless examples of indigenous people exercising their traditional rights without jeopardising conservation values of national park areas. For many years, the Queensland Government has lagged behind in involving Aboriginal people in management of nature conservation areas. This Government has carefully studied the Northern Territory model of joint management in parks such as Kakadu and Uluru before coming to the conclusion that such an arrangement could work in Queensland without detracting from or impairing the natural values of our national parks, as the Minister for Environment and Heritage said earlier. This legislation sets out very clearly the need for the preparation of a management plan prior to the granting of any national park land, which must be leased back to the Crown in perpetuity and then managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975. A management plan will reflect Aboriginal interests, and the legislation requires that the director must consult with Aboriginal people and appoint Aborigines to the board of management. Thus there will be a cooperative partnership between the Department of Environment and Heritage and Aboriginal communities that have claimed national parks on the basis of traditional or historical affiliations. As a result of the jointly prepared management plan, Aborigines will be able to carry out traditional activities within national parks. There will be no wholesale slaughter of animals and there will be no widespread destruction, as some conservationists fear, because the management that will be practised will at all times be consistent with good conservation and management of our parks. Neither will our parks be locked up and used exclusively by Aboriginal people, as some would claim, because the legislation ensures that there will be no decrease in the aggregate of the public rights that existed in relation to the national park land Legislative Assembly 8215 30 May 1991 immediately before the land became claimable. However, because of their spiritual/religious significance, certain areas may have restricted access, just as access is now restricted to some areas on scientific grounds. I feel sure that if a closer dialogue could be established between conservationists and Aborigines, many of the fears of conservationists have be allayed. I encourage both of those groups to work more closely together. However, I do not wish to be accused of being naive and of subscribing to a noble, savage concept of Aboriginal people. Greed and opportunism can be as much a part of the make-up of some Aboriginal people as it can of white people, and there is no doubt that careful monitoring of management practices will be required. However, the employment of increasing numbers of Aboriginal rangers will allow, subject to the management plans of that area, for the appropriate management practices to be put in place by the people who are the guardians of the land. I remind conservation groups of the criteria that were necessary for the wet tropics when it was inscribed on the World Heritage area, because one of them was that the area should "be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement which is representative of a culture and which has become vulnerable to the impact of irreversible change". That criterion was one of the four that was recognised when the wet tropics was inscribed on the World Heritage area; the culture of the rainforest people is one of the reasons why the wet tropics was listed. I concur with the Minister for Environment and Heritage when he said that our national parks will be enriched by the contribution that Aboriginal people will make and the interpretation of our parks will be able to reveal to people another whole dimension of what is in those parks. I can do no better than close with the words of Aboriginal author, Ms Sally Morgan, who said— "In the telling we assert the validity of our own experiences and we call a silence of 200 years a lie and it is important for you the listener because like it or not we are part of you. We have to find a way of living together in this country that would not only come when our hearts, minds and wills are set towards reconciliation and it will only come when thousands of stories have been spoken and listened to with understanding." While there may be uncertainty in some minds and hearts, I believe that the much needed reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples will occur and that this legislation is a step towards that much needed reconciliation. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (4.03 p.m.): This land rights issue really came like a bolt out of the blue earlier this year, despite the gossip that, because he did not want to have anything to do with the abortion issue, Mr Goss was making a trade with the socialist Left and was doing the land rights issue instead. I do not believe that. I think the abortion issue is still on the agenda. This legislation has come forward very quickly onto the business sheet; the unseemly haste of the process has probably unsettled a lot of people. In the wash-up, when this Bill becomes and Act of Parliament a lot of people will be left cogitating on where they stand and whether or not they are pleased. At the moment not many people seem to be pleased. There was no consultation with those people who are most concerned about this legislation. Over quite a period of time I have known that, when it comes to the Opposition and Aborigines, the Minister's favourite word is "paternalistic". That word is always being hurled across the Chamber, but I would have to say that I think this legislation leaves the Government wide open to being accused of being very maternalistic, in fact to the point where, if she is not careful, the Minister's nickname will probably become "Mumma" Anne—although I do know that the Minister has not had a great deal to do with this legislation and that "boss" Goss has been the one who has been handling the whole show. In fact, it has been very cleverly handled by Mr Goss, who has stood firm against the rioters in the street and has gained the kudos of the average Labor worker, who is not too keen on this land rights issue, anyway. Mr Littleproud: Mrs Warner has been left to carry the bucket. Legislative Assembly 8216 30 May 1991

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, she has, and that is very unfortunate. It is a slight that I would not be very happy with. I wish to register my disgust at the protests that were held yesterday and last week. I was outraged at the desecration of the Queensland and the Australian flags and I have to say very strongly that that is no way to get a message across. I had hoped never to see a demonstration such as that outside Parliament, and I am upset that the flag that my father and grandfather fought for was hurled down in such an unceremonious manner. I think that when a lot of people learn about this from its having been on the television last night, they will also be upset at this sort of action. Dignity, respect and esteem must be earned. They just will not be given to rabble, to drunks, or to layabouts who are paid by the Government to do nothing. Having got that off my chest—— Mr Prest: Is that all that's on it? Mrs McCAULEY: That is very rude. Those sorts of demonstrations can only engender resentment and misunderstanding and will do no good to anybody. There is no doubt in my mind that there should be land rights for Aborigines. It is a point of justice. They need to move on from the present hand-out mentality, which works against them. Even though some Aborigines may welcome it and feel that the Government is looking after them, I think most Aborigines resent it. Certainly a resentment has built up among white people from seeing black people being given things that white people do not have or cannot get easily. There is a resentment on both sides. I understand and accept that the development of self-esteem for Aboriginal people is tied to land rights. From increased self-esteem the Aborigines will be able to determine their own future—or that is the theory, anyway. They will be able to free themselves from handouts; they will be able to run their own communities, look after themselves and stand on their own two feet. But, we must stop and think, "Will they? Is this really going to happen?" I guess this is something we really do not know. It is all theory and we will not really know until we are a long way down the track. When I look at what the women councillors in Aurukun are trying to do—and it is something that I follow with great interest—I ask: are they going to win this battle against the grog in that community or are they not? We will have to wait and see. I really hope that they do. I believe strongly that the women will be the saviours of the Aboriginal race. They are the strong ones. I hope very much that the women of Aurukun are successful in their endeavours. All of this needs time—time for careful and thoughtful consultation. That is something that has been lacking totally in this entire issue. On 23 February this year, when speaking about land rights Mr Goss said— "It's going to be a long road. It will be a course of consultation. We have to balance other claims. We have to accept the interest of miners, the environment, tourism, grazing . . . all the rest of these things." I know that he has spoken to people who represent those interests but he has not spoken to the Aborigines. That is rather passing strange. He was also quoted as saying— "We are putting it squarely back into the court of the Aboriginal people to come up with something." Then he did not give them a chance to come up with anything. How strange! Historically, the Aborigines are a fragmented tribal people, not a single nation. They have never been a single nation; they have always been different groups, often fighting amongst themselves. Therefore, they need time to consult their own communities, to formulate plans, to listen to all the Aborigines and to get their act together so that they can have input. They have been denied that. In fact, it was shown that, in hindsight, what the American Indians achieved, they achieved on their own. It is not possible for the Aborigines to do that. Mr Foley: At least they had treaties which gave them certain rights to land, unlike the Aboriginals. Legislative Assembly 8217 30 May 1991

Mrs McCAULEY: Yes. The Aborigines also have a different sense of time and place. I think a bit of education will help white people accept that. Aboriginals have a cultural slowness, if you like, in that time is not as important to them as it is to others. We accept Japanese and other overseas visitors to our country and we try to understand their culture. We have to learn to do the same thing with black culture in this country. I think that is important. Recently, the Opposition spokesman, Mr Slack, and I visited the Woorabinda community and saw the program that it is undertaking. It was a very interesting day indeed. That community has a program under which people work for the dole. All the dole money is pooled and paid out by the council for work done. Ms Warner: That happens in most Aboriginal communities, not just there. Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, I realise that. However, there is not enough work to go round. It can be provided for only one or two days a week. That is unfortunate, because some men want to work every day of the week, not just for one or two days and then sit around for the other three. That is something that the community itself is handling. That is commendable. The arrogant and paternalistic attitude "Yes, you are entitled to land rights, but I will tell you what you need and I will tell you what you want" has to be avoided. That attitude has existed, and it is wrong. The Government has not ensured that sufficient time was available to listen to the Aboriginals' requirements. Sufficient time should have been allowed in which to negotiate and reach an agreement that was acceptable to both parties. Ms Warner: How do you think it should be improved? Mrs McCAULEY: I think there should have been more consultation with the black people; that is how it should have been improved. If we are to be realistic, we must face the fact that, if any sort of mutual agreement is to be reached, great compromises have to be made by both sides. By not consulting with the Aboriginal people, the Government has upset everybody. In this whole issue there is a great need to avoid the middleman and to hear the wants of all Aboriginals, not just those with a high profile such as the Mansells and others who motives are rather questionable, anyway. There also needs to be in place a proper administration that allows all Aboriginals to benefit and thus avoid the situation that occurred in America, where the records clearly show that US Government agents and some Indians pocketed the funds appropriated by the Government for Indians' use and drove the rest to starvation. We need to avoid what happened in New Zealand. Maori Tina Nixon said about the Maoris— "Their claim for rights, while not baseless, have been exaggerated to a point where money and wealth and not the establishment of the ancient spirit, have become the key motivators . . . a framework for racial intolerance has been erected . . . those who seek to claim back fishing rights and land ownership are not doing it for the betterment of Maori people but to set up a concrete power base from which to build their own political futures." She stated further— "If we want to build a harmonious country then the power-seeking minority within the Maori community must be halted." We have to look at those countries and learn from them. Bob Liddle was quoted as saying— "To single out Aboriginals as a race apart is reminiscent of Fiji, South Africa or Malaysia or any other country where measures have been taken to protect the interest of one particular group. The end result is smouldering resentment which finally finds expression in a flareup of racial violence." I guess that is what we saw yesterday. The question of land rights should have a twofold aim. It should aim to protect all Aborigines and so ensure that the majority benefit, and it should maintain credibility in non-black people's eyes. That cannot be done without allowing time in which the true representatives of the Queensland Aborigines, not those of the Minister's choosing, can come forward. I think the most outrageous, maternalistic Legislative Assembly 8218 30 May 1991 attitude or action that has ever been taken with regard to Aboriginal people is that the Minister will now decide who the trustees will be, whereas before the people chose. Ms Warner: Look at how it is stated in the legislation. It is very clear that there is a duty to consult with people enshrined in the legislation. Mrs McCAULEY: But the Minister has the say, and that is the bottom line. The important thing that Aboriginals need to realise is that education is a large key to the problems that face them. The sooner Aborigines realise that knowledge is power and that education will get them a long way down the track that they are trying to travel, the sooner they will get there. Education is very important. That is why it is a shame that in places such as Aurukun only 35 of 200 children eligible to attend school actually do so. While they have that attitude towards education, be it education in their way or education in our way, they will never advance themselves. The sooner that they realise that knowledge is power, the better. As a member of Parliament, it did not take me long to realise that knowledge is power. Freehold title causes some concern, yet Aboriginal views tend to be opposed to this form of tenure. Bob Weatherall said that future generations of Aboriginals could be without land if freehold title were granted. He said also that it would be a bit of a disaster, with some Aboriginals wanting to sell and others not. This legislation will not allow that land to be sold. As I understand it, that inalienable freehold land will not be allowed to be sold. I am pleased about that, because the ability to sell could lead to many problems. I cite the example of the American Indians. The policy of freeholding to the Indians in America was eventually abandoned, because too many Indians simply sold up their land and were seen to live a profligate life on the proceeds of the sale of that land instead of becoming self-sufficient. That really did not serve a useful purpose. Most white people believe that freehold title is a basic land rights claim. The National Party has always believed that deeds of grant in trust were the way to go and seemed to be the answer. I express the fear that this sort of legislation can promote separatism in a country such as Australia. That should be avoided at all costs. To some extent, it already exists in the Federal and State Government hand-outs to Aboriginal people. If we follow that track, we will all be losers. Despite the seeming superiority of New Zealand in race-related matters, it has failed to prevent the development of a growing disaffection amongst the Maori people. In common with many other countries, New Zealand finds itself with a separatist ethnic movement which, if its more extreme elements had their way, would tear the country apart. I sincerely hope that we can avoid going down that track. Much cynicism exists about the proposal that Aboriginals want their own country financially supported by white Australia by means of past rental payments. Many white people feel that the only sacred sites are those that contain rich mineral deposits or tourist attractions. Many people have a sneaking feeling that the sacredness of a site comes from economic rather than ritualistic reasons. I believe that the issue of land rights goes beyond this, and that with time and education those fears will prove unfounded. An article in the Far Eastern Economic Review stated— "Even the withdrawal of remote Aboriginal communities out of the mainstream was probably not what most Australians had in mind when they supported the 1967 constitutional changes (which actually recognised that Aboriginals existed!) most urban Australians probably thought the problem was removal of discrimination and greater help for Aboriginals to assimilate." I am quite sure that that is true. That particular referendum on official constitutional recognition of Aborigines was overwhelmingly supported. I am quite sure that the point made in that article was true. An article that appeared in the Courier-Mail last Monday, 27 May, quoted Senator Margaret Reynolds' attitude towards this land rights Bill. The article stated— "A Queensland Labor senator wants a land acquisition fund built in to the state Aboriginal land rights package which could now end up before the United Nations." Legislative Assembly 8219 30 May 1991

I do not agree with Senator Reynolds on that issue. I certainly do not agree that Queensland's or Australia's affairs should be referred to the United Nations. The article stated further— " . . . the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action said it had no alternative to reporting the Goss Government to the UN." The United Nations should mind its own business, and we will work this out on our own. I do not agree with Senator Reynolds that we should provide funding for acquisitions, and I certainly do not agree that this issue should be referred to the United Nations. Although the Opposition disagrees with this Bill because it is maternalistic or paternalistic, the biggest problem is lack of consultation, which could have been undertaken carefully and properly, but was not. Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (5.20 p.m.): This Bill is about recognition by this Government that, for the first time, Aboriginal people in Queensland can secure title to particular categories of land. Those categories have been spelt out. They include the DOGIT areas, to which members opposite have referred tediously and at length. Later in my speech, I will address those issues. Mention has also been made of making available Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire leases, Aboriginal reserves, vacant Crown land and national park land. The important aspect of this Bill is that it puts Aboriginal people in a position in which they can exercise control over the use and management of that land according to Aboriginal tradition. Members should make no mistake; this is a very important social reform. The longer that I sit in this House, the more I realise how important it is. It has not been easy to get this Bill to this stage in the Parliament. Aboriginal people have argued—rightly, in my view, and in the view of many people—that this Bill does not go far enough. That is a matter of record that has been well canvassed. I realise how difficult it is to have a focus of reform in Queensland. When introducing far-reaching social legislation in Queensland, one must develop principles that people are prepared to accept. From what I have heard of the mouthings of Opposition members, unfortunately—and, I believe, without exception—land rights reform and the delivery of justice are not part of their agenda. I could speak about what some of the members opposite said. They focused on two areas. They focused principally on an argument about a lack of consultation, and they also concerned themselves with the power of the Minister to appoint trustees, which is referred to in clause 3.02. The eight or so speakers opposite seem to have spent the entire debate talking about those two issues. Mr Stephan: They're very important. Mr HAYWARD: Absolutely. They are very important. But when members opposite talk about consultation, they begin by mouthing about how important consultation is. However, people sitting on this side of the House and in the gallery soon realise what members opposite mean by "consultation". They mean the right to filibuster, slow down, waste time and generally frustrate. They are not interested in any real form of land rights for Aboriginal people in Queensland. When one listens to what members opposite have said in this House, one sees that that becomes more and more obvious. The shadow Minister had a pathetic, illogical argument. He talked about the need for consultation. However, it was a deceitful argument, because he focused on those matters. That is what he was on about. He really wanted to slow things down. Then he focused on the deed of grant in trust areas and about how important, how apparently acceptable and how successful that deed of grant in trust legislation was. He described it as pioneering legislation. However, social change has occurred in Queensland. We are moving on from that, and it is not before time. That deed of grant in trust legislation does not work. It does not work in many of the communities in Queensland. The shadow Minister focused his argument on the deed of grant in trust legislation. I would be absolutely surprised if he had read the most recent report on the financial administration of Aboriginal and Islander councils; that is the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. If he had read that report, he Legislative Assembly 8220 30 May 1991 would have seen and read some of the problems that are particularly concerned with the operation of the deed of grant in trust areas in Queensland. As a matter of fact, that report set out the fundamentals of what the appropriate structure should be. That leads to the second point on which many of the speakers opposite focused. They said that the matter of the Minister being allowed to appoint trustees is not on and that it is not fair. In relation to what should happen—they say that, immediately, the existing elected people in the deed of grant in trust areas should be responsible. I do not believe that Opposition members have made any attempt to read the legislation, and I make that absolutely clear. The legislation states— " . . . the Minister must consult"— that is what it means, consult— "with, and consider the views of, the Aboriginal people particularly concerned with the land." In some cases, that does not necessarily mean the elected people. In some of those communities, people can be concerned directly with the land but not be one of the elected people. It is as simple as that. The legislation states further— " . . . the Minister must, as far as practicable, act in a way that is consistent"— that is an important word— "with any Aboriginal tradition applicable to the land concerned." Members opposite babbled on about conspiracies, and I shall refer to some of the other words that they managed to drag out. They referred to hidden agendas. That usually comes to the fore. Then they referred to real concern and then expected concern. The member for Landsborough said absolutely nothing. It was the usual non-performance that she gives in this Parliament. However, it was worse than that, because it was glib and it was bigoted. We are talking about human beings. As I say, it was bigoted. That is awful, and it is a terrible reflection upon the honourable member. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence at the comment of the member that "it was bigoted". I am not a bigoted person, nor was that reflected in the speech. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The member will withdraw it. Mr HAYWARD: I am prepared to withdraw it. The honourable member spoke about a hidden agenda. She said that it was a dishonest approach. She did not explain what she meant by a "dishonest approach". She just said that. As I said before, it is very unfortunate that members opposite use the term "consultation" to confuse, divide and frustrate. This is an absolutely pivotal clause of the Bill that allows the Minister to appoint the trustees for the benefit of Aboriginal people, to consult and to act in a way that is consistent with Aboriginal tradition. I want to make some comments on the deed of grant in trust communities. The more I heard members opposite speak, the more I became convinced that they did not really know what the deed of grant in trust communities are or anything about such communities. For the information of members opposite, I point out that there are 14 such deed of grant in trust communities in Queensland. In many cases, those communities comprise complex societies. They comprise residents who come from various tribal backgrounds. It is very important to understand that. It is fundamental to understand that. People have been gathered into those settlements. In many cases—in most cases—they did not come because they liked the weather there; they went there because they were sent there by force. Somehow, members opposite are trying to give those people who are elected, in some cases, a legitimacy—— Mr Veivers: What for? Mr HAYWARD: They were moved there. They were forcibly removed and placed there. Members opposite are somehow trying to give those people some legitimacy that Legislative Assembly 8221 30 May 1991 does not exist. In north Queensland and in the northern peninsula areas, in the main, local people—for want of a better word—are involved in the composition of the communities. Nevertheless, it was noted—unanimously, I might point out—by the Public Accounts Committee that, even in that situation, the nature of those communities is very complex. The committee was unanimous when it said— "Their composition"— and this refers to the northern peninsula areas— "in Aboriginal terms, was very complex, comprising people of different 'territorial, language, clan, kinship and old camp residence lines' who would never of their own volition live in close proximity to each other." That is what members opposite have failed to understand; it is absolutely pivotal to this legislation. The legislation allows the Minister to appoint trustees within those guidelines. I refer National Party speakers and the one speaker from the Liberal Party to page 15 of the same report. It provides a very interesting analysis and sets out the 14 deed of grant in trust communities. It provides a simple summary—for the members opposite and for many other people—of the history of each of those communities. This is very important legislation. It is at the forefront of Queensland's social agenda, and I would have thought that members opposite could have taken some time to look at the very clear, concise and precise analysis contained in the report. When discussing DOGIT areas it must be understood that they are unique communities. Members opposite reflected on how important these DOGIT areas are and how important it seems to be to them that the elected people should automatically be the ones who are trustees over land claims. Not only is there a problem regarding the structure, constitution and running of DOGIT areas, but also there is another problem which I think some members opposite would be aware of, although none of the members who have spoken this afternoon referred to it. That problem is the lack of control on the part of Aboriginal people over DOGIT land. This is emphasised by the excisions of the land. There is a term that is being used more and more commonly in Queensland, that is, that in many cases these DOGIT lands form a patchwork quilt. This legislation removes that patchwork quilt by transferring title of all such land to Aboriginal people. It principally recognises that from now on the people have total control of the land—which is so important for them—within the DOGIT area so that they can exhibit and understand what control is all about in the DOGIT communities. If honourable members opposite had read the material, I would have had to say that their speeches were devious or deceitful. However, I assume that most of them have not read the material and that it must be explained to them that they are operating purely on ignorance. These DOGIT areas are artificial structures which have been cobbled together. The point I want to make is very important. I am trying to put it into the context of the country towns that members opposite represent. When one talks about DOGIT areas, one is not talking about some country town in an electorate. These communities have been moulded together over the last 30 years and Governments have placed—as illustrated in this Public Accounts Committee report—statutory obligations on the people living in them. The unfortunate thing about these DOGIT communities—the communities that the arguments of members opposite have depended so much upon—is that they are artificial creations. It is important to understand that, but, worse than that, they are the result of policies of segregation, racism and other really awful things—as if those first two policies are not awful enough—such as social control and cultural denial. That members opposite should come in here and argue that those DOGIT areas have some legitimacy is an absolute disgrace. They deny the reality of Aboriginal cultural forms, the way Aboriginal society actually functions. In addition, we imposed a system of white man's local government in the DOGIT communities and tried to develop a notion of community, as in the case of the white town in an electorate that I referred to previously. That notion of community may not be generally valid for Aboriginal communities. Legislative Assembly 8222 30 May 1991

This Bill is very important. This afternoon I have been greatly concerned to hear the sorts of comments coming from members opposite. They focused on only two areas; I believe they focused wrongly and perhaps mischievously on those two areas. There are some very important things to come out of this legislation, so this afternoon I want to take a short time to emphasise how absolutely imperative it is that the Minister has the power to appoint trustees so that the real power structures can be recognised. That opportunity is presented to the Minister to recognise and understand what is being said. This Bill is all about consulting and considering the views. It is a very unique process, but that is what it is all about. It is all about exercising this power as far as practicable and exercising it in a way that is consistent with Aboriginal tradition, which is so very, very important. If we are fair dinkum about a proper land rights policy—and this is what this Bill attempts to do—and want to acquire rights over land in a correct manner, we must give the power to the legitimate, traditional owners or controllers of the land. I do not want to go into the matter in detail now, but in many cases in DOGIT areas the existing power structure of the local council may in fact be appropriate. However, I know—as many people in the gallery would know—that in many DOGIT areas, the existing power structure is not appropriate for identifying the legitimate, traditional owners of the land. The matter is as simple as that. I believe this Bill makes it clear that Aborigines who live in the communities—the people with whom the Minister can consult; in other words, the people who live there—are the people who should know, and do know, who ought to hold the land. That matter can be sorted out, but the point I am trying to make is that in many DOGIT areas, those people will not necessarily be members of the elected councils. The strength of the provision is very important because it enables the Minister to identify the real owners who are acknowledged by the community to be the real owners—not someone who obtains 51 votes compared to someone else who obtains 49 votes. Votes do not identify the real owners of the land. If that system were to prevail, some members of this Parliament would have very serious problems. The Bill strives to recognise the real owners of the land, and these people must be acknowledged by the community to be the real owners. Members of the Opposition were trying to argue against that important element of flexibility, but it is critical to the operation of this Bill. It is not the case, as some members have said, that this legislation will be an imposition. It gives the Minister scope to identify the legitimate owners and, importantly, to restore their status within Aboriginal society through the traditional owners' acknowledged leaders. It is important that the legitimate, traditional owners are the people to whom title to the land is given. In conclusion, let me state that I believe I have demonstrated that the two main points raised by members of the Opposition are bunkum. The issue of consultation is important to Aboriginal people, but it is not important to members of the National Party who are not interested in it. They are interested in filibustering, fooling around, mucking about and generally kicking up a fuss. They do not believe in land rights or in anything to do with land rights. They suggest that the Government revert to the DOGIT areas. Members of the Government have demonstrated clearly that the system of the title going to elected people in DOGIT areas is inappropriate. Members of the Opposition are trying to argue that it is appropriate. I believe that this Bill can restore the status of genuine leaders in Aboriginal communities. Time expired. Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (5.40 p.m.): I am pleased to rise in this Chamber to discuss the Bill. At the outset, I wish to comment on the contribution made by the member for Caboolture, who is undoubtedly the winner of the scruffy award for Parliament. I believe he is a professional man, yet his ability to express himself is very poor. The member is so inarticulate and most unimpressive. Mr Hayward: Why don't you go and bash somebody up, you imbecile. Mr DUNWORTH: I did not mean to be personal, but I must admit that, listening to the honourable member, I was taken aback. Legislative Assembly 8223 30 May 1991

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I ask the member for Sherwood to speak to the Bill. Mr DUNWORTH: Firstly, the Bill bears all the hallmarks of another Labor "triumph". It was introduced in the middle of the night and has lain on the table for scarcely seven days. Mr Dollin: That is what the Standing Orders provide. Mr DUNWORTH: Obviously, the member for Maryborough is now talking to the timber-workers who have told him what they think. This Bill represents a total lack of consultation. On Sunday, I noticed that this sentiment was expressed in a newsletter circulated in my parish. I wish to quote that letter, which states— "I am concerned about the indecent haste with which the Aboriginal Land Bill of 1991 is proceeding. The haste effectively denies proper participation and adequate consultation to all parties concerned. I remind you of Mr Tony Fitzgerald's words that 'Information is the lynchpin of the political process. Knowledge is, quite literally, power. If the public is not informed, it cannot take part in the process with any real effect.' I am concerned that the proposed legislation does not take into account the aspirations of urban Aboriginal people and therefore may divide the Aboriginal community. Deliberate division of a people over any issue is a recognised tool of political oppression." The local priest went on to state— "I request that there be an extension of time for the passage of the bill to allow for proper and adequate consultation with the Aboriginal people. This would be in keeping with expressed Labor policy at the 33rd State Conference of the Labor Party and would comply with the spirit of the Fitzgerald Commission Report." The local priest is Father Gerry Hefferan, who has dealt and lived with Aboriginal people for a considerable period. I turn now to consider the other hallmarks of this Bill, which has caused total confusion and division within the Queensland community. Dr Flynn: Have you been a member of the Liberal Party long enough to formulate a policy on this issue? Mr DUNWORTH: When the member earns my respect, I will answer him. This Bill has also brought about anger, frustration, and betrayal of Labor Party principles, policies and members. It has created opportunism on the part of the Premier and the complete subjugation of the Socialist Left faction by the Premier's power base, the AWU. Violent attacks have been made on the symbolic heart of our democratic system. This House has been turned into a battleground and an arena for the utterance of obscenities at and about this Government. This Parliament has been the scene of violence, vandalism and the desecration of our national flag. Above anything that is regarded as a sacred site by the people of Queensland stands this House of Parliament. Nothing is a more sacred symbol to our nation than our flag. What have this Government and this apologist Minister achieved? The answer is, "A total disaster; a rerun of the adoption Bill." The Minister is unable to stand and deliver. I will spend the remainder of my time commenting on the ramifications of this Bill for national parks.It was interesting to hear from the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I believe that officers of his department refer to him—not in a mean manner—as "jungle", because he is a little bit dense and green. Mr Coomber: Thick and dense. Legislative Assembly 8224 30 May 1991

Mr DUNWORTH: I accept that interjection. The Minister spoke in glowing terms regarding this legislation, which will sever vast areas of national park from public ownership. Mr Elder interjected. Mr DUNWORTH: I dealt with the honourable member for Manly yesterday. I do not want to have to do it again. The Minister, who is the keeper of these parks for the people of Queensland, has disinherited the people. He is hard to blame, as he knows not what he does. He is amicable but blundering. He obviously had not spoken to his officers, to conservation groups or the National Parks Association—those people who have struggled for decades to preserve these glorious natural areas. Those groups are implacably against the legislation. I will cite a document from the National Parks Association. However, firstly I should define national parks. National parks are defined as relatively large areas of land set aside in public ownership to preserve outstanding features of our natural and cultural heritage and to provide opportunities for nature-based recreation. The cardinal principle of management of national parks is permanent preservation, to the greatest possible extent, of their natural condition. There is a fundamental contradiction in terms in this Bill. National parks cannot be owned by any individual or groups of individuals. If the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs had spoken to the National Parks Association of Queensland and to other groups such as the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, she would have realised the opposition to this Bill of a vast array of groups. A letter dated 26 May 1991 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland stated— "The dilution of National Parks legislation which ensures the protection of their natural condition from all human interference, is no more acceptable to accommodate Aboriginal land rights aspirations, than it was under the previous Recreation Areas Management (R.A.M.) Act designed to allow for commercial exploitation of National Parks. There is a certainty of emotional reaction against interference with these public lands. The timing, targets and intensity of that emotion cannot be forecast, and it may not occur until incidents are reported and misreported. Targets may include conservationists who kept quiet." Mr Fenlon: Mr Dunworth—— Mr DUNWORTH: I have a very good delivery here and I cannot waste my time with fools. The letter continued— "This is not solely a matter of tolerable protection of landscape and wildlife, but of property highly valued by all the Australian community. Aboriginal Australians are equally able to share these protected lands." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! As it is obvious that the honourable member is not taking interjections, I ask honourable members to cease making them. Mr DUNWORTH: I only deal with the best; not the boys in the kennel. The letter continued further— "Northern Territory multiple use parks are not a useful model because:- a. They have been multiple use since inception (in about 1975) whereas Queensland parks have been preservation areas since 1908. b. Queensland parks have been extracted from a reluctant Crown and then guarded by community pressure, sometimes of heroic proportions. c. The financial resources used to manage N. T. Parks are many times those available to manage a Qld. park. In particular, problems are bombarded with experts and money when they appear in the N. T." Legislative Assembly 8225 30 May 1991

The letter also stated— "Aboriginal elders without traditional law, and law enforcement, and with new temptations cannot guarantee to control antisocial and exploitative individuals among their numbers. To say that Aborigines will never harm National Parks is to repeat the sort of propaganda that says that soil degradation cannot be widespread because farmers depend on the soil, or that logging interests improve forests." Mr Fenlon: What did they do for 40 000 years? Mr DUNWORTH: The honourable member should listen and learn. The letter continued— "Aboriginal management of land is worth paying for and taking risks for. However, National Parks are not social experiment sites any more than they are potential resort real estate or for commercial exploitation. Land used for Aboriginal hunting & gathering should have another tenure. If their system of management proves to maintain a natural balance of species and does not further scar the landscape (eg. with vehicle tracks, rubbish, encampments or mistakes with fire) and allows appropriate visitation by anyone, then that land may fairly be included within the promise to increase total area of National Parks. It may include land excised from existing National Parks which had originally been included as buffer zones or for administrative convenience, particularly if that land is in exchange for new National Parks elsewhere. It may include some land claimed for future National Parks." The letter continued further— "Any excision should be by Governor in Council so that conservationists objections are against Government not Aborigines. A described procedure of Aboriginal claims for multiple use of a National Park and then a contest with objectors is divisive and the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland regards Aboriginal land rights and National Parks usage as separate issues, and we support the thrust of the National Parks Association policy on this matter, as the only tenable stand for the conservation movement to endorse." I will now quote one of the aims of the National Parks Association of Queensland, which was founded in 1930, well before Aboriginal land rights became a popular issue and also well before conservation became a mainstream issue. The association's main aim is— ". . . To preserve intact in their natural condition the existing National Parks of Queensland, and to secure the reservation of all suitable areas. Accordingly, NPAQ would oppose the revocation of any National Park or equivalent Reserve, or any part of these, and would oppose any departure from direct Government control of National Parks. NPA will actively support and promote the declaration of the remaining unreserved suitable areas of Queensland as National Parks, and will act to protect the integrity and quality of National Parks. NPAQ will welcome involvement in the development and implementation of Management Plans for National Parks, of Aboriginal groups with significant traditional links to the land of the park and will raise no objection to special provisions for presentation and preservation of, and appropriate restrictions on access to, identified places of special significance to such groups ('sacred sites'). NPAQ would oppose, in principle, the granting to any person of the right to carry out incompatible activities in existing National Parks, including grazing, provision of road access, the extraction of minerals and the taking of flora and fauna, except in those special cases where noxious weeds or feral animals are to be eradicated and then only in accordance with the provisions of a Management Plan." I ask honourable members to consider which national parks will be affected. I believe that all national parks in Queensland will be affected. I will restrict my comments to the national parks in south- east Queensland. I have a list of all the national parks in Legislative Assembly 8226 30 May 1991

Queensland. The national parks in south-east Queensland include the Great Sandy national park, which comprises 52 400 hectares; Noosa national park; the Natural Arch; Burleigh Heads national park; Lamington national park; Beerwah national park; Coonowin, Ngungun and Tibrogargan in the Glasshouse Mountains; Mount Pinbarrin; the Conondale Ranges; the Kondalilla Ranges; and Mount Barney. The list is endless. Under this legislation all of these parks could be claimed. From my reading of the legislation, all that is needed is a claim that the area is of traditional or cultural significance. Any of these parks could be claimed. The Government is supposed to be the keeper of these parks, yet it has alienated the people of Queensland from them. It has taken these national parks and given them away to a group with vested interests. What a disgrace! I invite honourable members to run through the list and see what their electorates are losing—thousands and thousands of hectares of national park. The list also includes Moreton Island, Blue Lake at Stradbroke and Lady Musgrave Island. Perhaps there is a claim in regard to that island; I do not know. It also includes St Helena Island—which may be in the electorate of the member for Manly—and Fort Lytton, which is also a national park. It includes Pumicestone Passage, Cedar Creek at Mount Tamborine and Tamborine itself. As I say, the list is endless. All of these parks could be claimed by Aboriginal people. What does this mean? Dr Flynn: Did you tell your priest that's how you felt about it? Mr DUNWORTH: I do not have to go to confession; I am without sin—as is the member for Southport. Mr Elder interjected. Mr DUNWORTH: I cannot say, "My son, you are without sin." Does it mean permits will be needed to enter national parks that could in future be Aboriginal land? Can non-Aboriginals be refused access? Can they camp there? Can they have a barbecue on the headland at Burleigh Heads? Will special Aboriginal living areas be set aside, as is recommended in the Fitzgerald report for the Great Sandy Region and Fraser Island? I know that most members of the Government probably have not read the report. If that is the recommendation, that is what will happen. What does this mean? Does this mean hunting with .243 Remingtons on the back of Toyotas? Does "foraging" mean removing staghorns and tree ferns for commercial benefit? Does it mean netting of Awinya Creek on Fraser Island? Does it mean the introduction of feral animals such as dogs and cats? Does it mean septic systems? Does it mean litter? Does it mean broken-down cars? Will the number of people living in these areas be limited? If the Fitzgerald report on Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region is the precedent, then the scenario that I have painted will be the result. Members of the Liberal Party encourage the use of the undoubted skill and husbandry of Aboriginal people in the management of these parks, but we cannot support the alienation of our superb system of national parks from the people of Queensland. Dr Clark: The ACF supports the legislation. Mr DUNWORTH: Before I conclude, I will deal with some of the more significant members of the Government back bench. As yet Dr Clark is not included in that. First of all I will deal with the crass pomposity of the member for Yeronga. Twice in recent months he has betrayed not only his principles but also his natural constituents and supporters. Mr Foley: This is the same as last time. Mr DUNWORTH: That is because it is the same situation again. The member for Yeronga betrayed his constituents and supporters when he sold out to his mentor, the Premier, when the House debated the Electoral Districts Act. He compromised himself by accepting and supporting a continuation of the gerrymander, and he has again compromised himself in his normal ponderous, verbose and egotistical manner by Legislative Assembly 8227 30 May 1991 supporting this shadow of a Bill. It is nothing like the Bill that the Minister demanded. The member for Yeronga and the Minister went before the Premier and melted like ice-cream in the heat. The member for Yeronga has the incredible audacity to criticise members of the Liberal Party and the National Party because they are prepared to honestly state their position—a position that he is either not allowed or not prepared to adopt. He is adopting a very craven position. The member for Brisbane Central—the man for all seasons—is not in the Chamber. He does not have a position. What looks like being the populist view within the party is good enough, and he will accept it. For him, delivery: fair; presentation: poor—although, when compared to that of the member for Caboolture, it is presentation: outstanding; content: whatever people would like to hear. It is a great tragedy that this Bill has satisfied no-one. It is another case of the Labor Party and the Minister selling their souls on the altar of pragmatism. It is a pity that they do not understand that if you want change, you have to have the guts to go for it and push for it. Sadly, this quality is totally absent. The Liberal Party cannot support the Bill. Sitting suspended from 5.59 till 7.30 p.m. Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (7.30 p.m.): History is created in the life of a Parliament on few occasions. It is my view that the introduction of this legislation into the Parliament of Queensland is indeed an historic occasion. With the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Bill, this Parliament, for the first time in its history, seriously addresses the question of Aboriginal land rights and the recognition of pre- existing Aboriginal rights to their homeland. It is my view that with the introduction of this legislation the Queensland community and this Parliament has come of age in a process of maturation in its consideration of serious social issues in the community. For over a century, the question of Aboriginal Land Rights has exercised the minds of those responsible for social policy development in this country. It has taken a long, long time for Queensland to turn its mind seriously to the question of inalienable rights to land for Aboriginals. That is now achieved in this Bill. On the basis that it has never been achieved before, if on no other basis, today is an historic occasion for the Aboriginal people of Queensland and the Queensland community. There will be a number of difficult issues which this Government will address in the course of its life. There will be endless debate during this Government's term of office about whether it proceeded too quickly or too slowly with reform. That is always a feature of reform Governments in this country. We all remember the suggestions that the Whitlam Government moved too quickly, and there are some who suggest that this Government in some respects moves too slowly or, in this particular instance, not far enough. That is a matter of public perception that each individual will assess. The simple fact is that an enduring feature of Labor Governments, of true Government's reform, is that they not only respond to fair-minded public opinion but they lead public opinion with true social reform. One of the difficulties that has been faced in recent debate about this proposed new law for Queensland is whether our Government lives up to expectations. All Governments of reform, particularly Labor Governments in this country, have expectations out there in the community. We acknowledge that. I think it is important today that we not focus unduly on the distance that might exist between what someone's expectations might have been in respect of this new law and what has actually been achieved, when the distance is much greater between what has gone before and what will be after this Bill becomes law. What is being achieved by this Bill, I suggest, is a paradigm shift in the way that white law addresses the issue of Aboriginal land rights. It is an monumental change in the way white law in a white Parliament for the first time genuinely recognises real Aboriginal land rights. The rights that were accorded Aboriginal people to live in certain parts of Queensland in the past were Clayton's rights. What distinguishes this Bill most significantly from what has gone before—the deeds of grants in trust and the other forms of reserves set aside by the previous Government—is that they never had the courage to provide Aboriginal people with true freehold title; they never had the courage to take that final Legislative Assembly 8228 30 May 1991 step and provide true freehold title. This Bill provides inalienable freehold title to Aboriginal people, and it is the inalienable feature of that freehold title that draws the ownership of that land more closely in line with Aboriginal ownership than any other form of title known to white law. It was suggested by the Opposition that this Government has no social policy agenda. Well, if ever there needed to be evidence of a manifest social policy agenda of this Government, this Bill is a clear indication of it. What the Government is doing is recognising pre-existing rights, not creating new rights to land. It is not providing, as the Opposition spokesman suggested, for some form of additional hand-out. These rights are not rights that have been extinguished; they have always been there, and they have always been latent, but they have never been recognised, not even by the previous Government's regime for land access to Aboriginal people. I do not propose to dwell on the past suffering of Aboriginal people. That is universally recognised. What the Government does recognise through the introduction of this Bill is that Aboriginal people in our society are currently suffering a significant degree of disadvantage and that this Bill works to redress, to a large degree, that disadvantage. For many years, it has been recognised by Aboriginal people and by those who understand the rights sought by the Aboriginal to inalienable freehold land goes to the very root of their right to access their original cultural identity. Therefore, this Bill is a formal acknowledgment of those prior rights, and works to restore the dignity and, ultimately, the independence of Aboriginal people. But it does more than that. It not only confers on Aboriginal people some opportunity to recover from the disadvantage that they have suffered in the past, but it gives our community—the white community—something as well. It gives to us a chance to appreciate more fully and more sincerely the heritage that is the true history —not the history that was part of too many Anglo-Saxon history books in primary schools in my day and in the days of those who went to school before me—of this country and this continent, namely, a history of the indigenous people of this country—our Aboriginal heritage. I turn now to what I understand to be the scheme of the legislation and in that way highlight why I see it as a major advance on what has occurred in the past. Fundamentally, the legislation will create what is known as Aboriginal land. It does this by providing two generic categories of land which can be converted into Aboriginal land. Firstly, there is transferable land, which relates specifically to those reserve-type lands which were previously set aside for Aboriginal communities. The second category is claimable land, referred to in clause 2.12 of the Bill, which refers to available Crown land that the Governor in Council has declared, by Government Gazette notice, together with that Aboriginal land which is transferred land. In other words, transferable lands, after they are transferred, become Aboriginal land and may then also be subject to competing claims by a different group of Aboriginals. I note that, in the clause relating to claimable lands, there is a process of gazettal by the Governor in Council. That intervening process is probably something that causes some people some trepidation in relation to this Bill. But it is there partly because at present the available stock of Crown land which will be open to claim is not clearly identifiable. It would be my hope that, in due course, that process will not be necessary. Once a full catalogue of available Crown land is achieved, it will not be necessary for the intervening process of gazettal to occur before that land can be claimed. However, until one can identify precisely what all the available Crown land in this State is, it seems to me to be a satisfactory temporary mechanism for identifying land which is available to be claimed. Clause 2.13 places a number of limitations on what constitutes available Crown land, and some reservations have been expressed about that. I think those reservations are genuine and understandable. Again, as I will point out in a moment, the basis of claim is extensive and I would like to think that, in due course, once the general community accepts that the claims that will be made and the lands that will be transferred to Aboriginal people are claims and transfers which will receive broad community acceptance, we will be able to extend the range of accessible claimable land so that Aboriginal people will have access to land beyond that for which the Bill currently Legislative Assembly 8229 30 May 1991 provides. I should note that, even under current terms, transferable lands constitute about 3.4 million hectares. Of course, on current estimates, that is about 1.8 per cent of the State. However, the available Crown lands which may be claimed may amount to approximately another 2 million hectares, which is another 1.16 per cent of the State. That is a pretty modest share of our State's space, but I think it is a reasonable start. When one looks at the grounds for claim, to which I turn now, it will be seen that once the categories of land that can be claimed are extended, those grounds of claim will indeed accord to Aboriginal people a reasonable and, indeed, much more extensive access to Aboriginal land in the future than currently occurs under the laws of any other State. Let me refer now to the way in which it is obtained. Claimable lands are available to be claimed under three grounds. The first is traditional affiliation, the second is historical association and the third is economic or cultural viability—otherwise known as a needs basis. Those three grounds of claim are more extensive than the grounds available to Aboriginal people under the laws of New South Wales or, indeed, the laws of the Northern Territory. The New South Wales legislation provides for a definition of claimable Crown lands, which includes lands which belong to the Crown and which are able to be lawfully sold or leased or are not lawfully used or occupied and are not needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpose. I note that in that legislation there is no provision for gazettal and that it extends to all Crown lands. Even with that broad definition of what constitutes claimable Crown lands in New South Wales, one should note that the actual area of land that has successfully been availed of by Aboriginal people in New South Wales is significantly less than what will be available to Aboriginal people under the modest proposals that are provided for even in this Bill. Because of the broad grounds of claim that are provided in this Bill, ultimately much more Aboriginal land will be available in Queensland than is available in New South Wales, although perhaps not to the extent that it is available in the Northern Territory. The grant of land that is available in Queensland will be a grant in fee simple. It also will be inalienable. However, the Aboriginal trustees of land will have the right to offer interests in their land. Those interests, which are limited, are defined in clause 3.11. It includes a right to consent to a mining interest. The issue of a mining veto has also raised some concerns. The effect of the consent in this provision, together with subclause (5) of clause 3.11, clearly indicates that the consent can be granted or withheld, and granted on terms or conditions that Aboriginal people might negotiate and come to agreement upon with the person or party seeking to claim a mining interest. In respect of mining—the Bill specifically reserves the rights of Aboriginal people under the Mineral Resources Act, which specifically provides for the consent of owners of reserves to a claim for mining. Furthermore, that Act, which overlays the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Bill, and perhaps should be incorporated ultimately in amendments to this Bill, provides that the owner of a reserve, the claimants of land or the trustees of Aboriginal land can request a conference with the party seeking to make a mining claim. If that conference does not reach agreement, the matter can go to the Wardens Court, and the mining registrar can set the terms and conditions upon which the warden would recommend to the Minister that any mining can occur. I understand that the experience in the Northern Territory has been that Aboriginals are not petty about mining claims. However, they insist that they have real and genuine negotiations with any party seeking a mining claim and that certain fair terms and conditions for that claim be provided. Those terms and conditions may provide for some form of fee or royalty. I believe that that is contemplated within the joint terms of this Bill and the Mineral Resources Act. It might have been desirable that this Bill refer specifically to some formal procedure for facilitating the provision of royalties to Aboriginal people as part of those negotiations, and for a fund into which those royalties could be paid for the purchase or acquisition of additional land. That is not provided in this Bill. However, it seems to me that there is an avenue for genuine and constructive negotiations to occur, and that those negotiations, which could result in Aboriginal people—by mutual agreement with mining claimants—obtaining further fees or royalties, would come to fruition without any specific mention in the Bill. At some stage in the future, it may be Legislative Assembly 8230 30 May 1991 that we can specifically provide formal recognition of the right of Aboriginal people to negotiate for those sorts of fees. Several factors have raised some concerns. One issue of concern is the ministerial fiat, which occurs initially with the gazettal of claimable lands, and at the end of the process in the Land Claims Tribunal. After the tribunal has considered the claim of the claimants and makes a recommendation to the Minister about whether the grant of Aboriginal land should be made, the Minister still has a discretion not to make the grant. It is understandable that people would regard that as an undue limitation on the access of Aboriginal people to lands that they are claiming. I believe that, in time, the Minister will respond and generally accept the recommendation of the tribunal. When the processes and the fruits of those claims are seen to be effective, it may be that the question of ministerial fiat at that late stage can be done away with. Another factor that will facilitate claims by Aboriginal people in the future will be some recognition for land councils that can represent individual groups of Aboriginal people or trustees of particular areas in their claims for further land. Ultimately, I believe that we could provide for formal recognition of councils and for their funding. Time expired. Hon. W. A. M. GUNN (Somerset) (7.50 p.m.): In the past few days, members have witnessed the actions of a particular group of people. Those people have made a great contribution to this country. They have worked on cattle and sheep properties in the western areas of the State, and have fought beside other Australians in the field of battle and have worn the Australian uniform. A very fine Aboriginal, Eric Deeral, was elected to this House. I remember Eric quite well. He made an excellent contribution to debate in the House and represented his electorate with dignity. Mr Turner: What party was he in? Mr GUNN: He was an excellent National Party member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! If the member for Nicklin wishes to interject, he will do so from his correct seat. Mr Turner: I am acting Leader of Opposition Business in the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not recognise the member for Nicklin as the Leader of Opposition Business in the House. The honourable member for Burnett is leading the Bill as the Opposition spokesman. The Leader of Opposition Business is the member for Fassifern. I will not accept any more interjections from the member for Nicklin. Mr GUNN: From listening to this debate, it is pretty evident that many members do not know much about Aboriginal and Islander people. During my childhood, and as I was growing up, I had the opportunity to work alongside those people. They are a peace-loving people. I cannot understand why the Premier of this State did not go out to the gates of Parliament House and meet those people. I can assure him that he was in no danger. Those people are not like that. Because of my association with them, I personally know more about the Islanders than I do about the Aboriginals. My daughter also has an association with them, which I will mention later. Aboriginals and Islanders have been put on trial. They now have good education facilities. When I became a member of Parliament in 1972, I visited Aboriginal settlements and the Torres Strait islands. I was very disappointed with the facilities that they had. They were very poor indeed. At a later stage, when I rose to the Cabinet ranks, it became my province to fight a case for them. I am happy to say that, in most areas, they have wonderful facilities not only in primary education but also in secondary education. Many of them go on to tertiary education and are quite capable of taking their place in the arts and sciences. Mr Bredhauer: Most of the funds for the Islander schools were provided by the Federal Government. Legislative Assembly 8231 30 May 1991

Mr GUNN: There is no such thing. The taxpayers of Australia provide the funds. It is not the Federal Government. That is a misnomer and has been for a long time. The Federal Government supplies nothing, but it wastes a hell of a lot. I want to see the culture of the Aborigines and Islanders maintained. On the many, many trips that I have made to settlements in Cape York and in the Northern Territory, I was interested to see the young children still being taught the various Aboriginal and Islander dances. Anyone who has had the opportunity of seeing them must applaud them. On one occasion, I had the pleasure of opening the Hope Vale Festival. A lot of effort goes into that dance festival and it is well worth seeing. On one occasion, I accompanied the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to Townsville to see the Pacific Festival, which was also well worth seeing. Protests have never worried me, provided that they do not inconvenience people who are going about their daily business. Recent land rights protests that have been attended by no-hoper white stirrers have harmed the Aboriginal cause. One might ask: is it intentional or not? Destruction of property cannot be tolerated. Aborigines and Islanders must realise that those white stirrers get their kicks out of confrontation and take part in every protest march that I have seen around here. We call them rent-a-crowd. They are well known. If the television cameras and press reporters were taken away, nothing would happen. When deed of grant in trust legislation was introduced into the House, I supported it. I still consider that it is the best form of ownership. Promises made by the ALP could not be kept. That is evident in the legislation before the House. The ALP has once again broken promises. Aboriginal and Islander people had an expectation that they would get genuine land rights. However, that is a misnomer. The legislation is a fraud. As I have said before, it would have been better to leave the legislation and finetune the deed of grant in trust. That was the intention of the Government at the time the legislation was introduced. I can well remember that. Aborigines and Islanders living in remote areas are disadvantaged in many, many ways. The cost of fuel is astronomical. In most areas, it costs about $1 a litre. Those people pay Federal Government sales tax on the landed article, which means that they pay sales tax on the freight that they have already paid. Food prices are double what one would expect to pay in Brisbane. Air services are erratic and extremely expensive. Considering the remoteness of some areas, education services are now reasonable. I take my hat off to the teachers, etc., who go to those areas. There is no doubt that they do an excellent job. Facilities have improved out of sight. I was Minister for Education from 1980 to 1982, and I fought very hard for the Education Department to take over that function, which it should have taken over years ago. Mistakes have been made. Since the Education Department has been responsible for teaching in those places, it has been my pleasure to accompany Federal Ministers and members of Parliament to various places to open some of the new schools, which are of a very, very high standard. Health services, particularly at Thursday Island Hospital, are excellent. That hospital is well staffed, with good doctors and nurses. MAPs on the islands are well equipped and, once again, have good nursing staff. Community councils have had bad reports from the Public Accounts Committee and the CJC. Some are under investigation. However, in most cases they need qualified staff. That is a cause of many of the problems. During my 19 years in this House—nine years as a Minister of the Crown—I have been to many Aboriginal and Islander regions and have been extended the utmost courtesy. In 1981, as Minister for Education, I made a trip to settlements in Cape York and the Northern Territory. It was interesting that approximately 200 Queensland teachers had been seconded to the Northern Territory. About seven different dialects were spoken, and our teachers were handling all of them. I was very, very proud of them. I travelled throughout the area for a long time. I found that the children were well cared for and very intelligent. I am certain that, if given the opportunity, they can achieve any station in life. I personally have listened to their problems and, in all cases, have tried to do my utmost to improve their positions. I certainly have first-hand knowledge of Torres Strait. My second daughter, Helen, who is a skilled nurse, accepted the Torres Strait region as a challenge to her professionalism. She married an Islander and with her four children lives on Badu Island. I Legislative Assembly 8232 30 May 1991 am very proud of Helen, William and my grandchildren, who ring me every couple of days and spend two holidays a year with my wife and me at the farm. I visit them once a year and have made many friends on Badu. My daughter and William now have a large general store on the island, but Helen still assists with her nursing skills when that is necessary. The Government has done a good job there in some respects. However, with this legislation the Government has insulted the Aboriginal and Islander people. Over a long period, those people were promised absolute land rights and, in return, at many elections, the ALP received support at the ballot-box. I believe that the Government originally intended to give absolute land rights, but it found that the vast majority of its own supporters—and probably some in caucus—were dead against giving any more than the Government now intends to give them. I can fully appreciate the anger that is being demonstrated by the Aboriginal and Islander people. They had an expectation that the Government would carry out the many promises that it made over many years. Instead, the Government has treated Aboriginal and Islander people with utter contempt. White people would not let the Government get away with the miserable trick that it played on these people. The Premier insulted and intimidated Aboriginal and Islander people by saying that they were grog- riddled and diseased. The alcohol problem is just as bad, if not worse, in the white population, and even in the City of Brisbane. Alcohol is a social problem all over the world. The Government is using that problem as an excuse, and that must be extremely hurtful to those fine people. The additional cost to this Government as a result of the alcohol problem would be minimal. My two other children visit the island regularly. They are both doctors and give their services free of charge to the people living on the island. This is very much appreciated, and one only has to see the faces of these people to realise that, because they only see a doctor every couple of months. Shortly, my colleague who is leading this debate will talk about islanders. Those islanders who have received secondary education on the Torres Strait islands can take their place in any society. The point I make is that the treatment handed out to Aboriginal and Islander people by this Government through this Bill, which is a fraud, is the greatest insult ever handed out to any Queenslander, black or white. It would have been better if the Government left the deed of grant trust legislation in place. When the original legislation was put in place, I wanted to include forestry and gravel rights. It should have been done at that time because the provision of those rights is only fair and reasonable. The response that I have received from my many Aboriginal and Islander friends is that at least they knew where they stood with the National Party. Many of them have supported the ALP for many years but they claim that the members of the ALP have turned out to be frauds. They said that they did not ever expect to be let down by this Government, which promised everything yet gave nothing. The Aboriginal people are being used by a group of shonky whites. Whenever there is trouble in any of the settlements or on any of the islands, a white person is behind it. They are not there to help black people; they are there to help themselves. They claim that they have the support of Federal members. I have heard that said many times, but I do not believe them. A member of Parliament would not be stupid enough to compromise himself or herself with some of these people whose reputations are well known not only in Queensland but all over Australia. This Bill should be withdrawn. The Premier should sit down and talk to the people. They are dissatisfied with the Bill. They are the most important people and the ones who are affected by this Bill. I cannot understand the lack of consultation. The matter has been taken out of the hands of the Minister who is leading tonight's debate. It never should have been taken out of her hands, because she knows more about it than the Premier will ever know. I am absolutely convinced that Aboriginal and Islander people would have been much more comfortable with the Minister who is sitting opposite me, because she had an understanding and spoke out on many occasions on their behalf. I am disturbed by the lack of Government speakers in this debate. It is indicative of the difference of opinion that exists among members of the Government. There will be no shortage of speakers at the ALP conference. I hope the conference deals with this matter Legislative Assembly 8233 30 May 1991 in depth, because I consider it to be a grave mistake. Finally, after this Bill is passed, Aboriginal and Islander people have every right to say to this Government, "Thanks for nothing." Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (8.04 p.m.): I have been attempting to draft my speech for some considerable time, but I have had some difficulty with it. Whilst listening to this debate, I have come to the view that there are a number of people on both sides of the House who do not understand this legislation and that there are certainly a number of people in this House who do not understand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. They do not understand their needs and aspirations. Ms Warner: And you do? Mr GILMORE: Yes. I am very disappointed at the racist overtones and the attempt by Government speakers to paint members on this side of the House as being unconcerned for Aboriginal people. That is patently untrue. If members had been kind enough to listen and cut through the rhetoric, they would realise that there is a deep and abiding concern and understanding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by members on this side of the House. As has been said on a number of occasions today, this legislation is something of a fraud. It does not do the things that it purports to do. It is no wonder that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this State are unhappy people today. I suggest that we have managed to achieve a double whammy, which is the sort of thing that one has come to expect from the Premier of this State. He has set these people up. That becomes clear if one reads the policy documents on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs and the prospects for those people under a Labor Government which were published prior to the last election. There was considerable expectation raised amongst these people about the Government's performance and what it would do for them. The Government has now failed to achieve that. That makes me unhappy, and it will continue to make the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander of this State unhappy for many years to come. When I say that the Premier finally achieved a double whammy, I believe that he cheated on these people. He raised their expectations and in so doing it is no secret to say in this place that the greater community of the State was somewhat disturbed at the prospect raised by those expectations. To a very great degree, the Premier has now pulled the mat out from underneath the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this State. That has been evidenced by the fact that they have marched on this Parliament and taken the front gates off the parliamentary precinct area, which is a most unhealthy thing to do, in my opinion. Those people are frustrated because of the things that have happened to them. Now that the Premier has managed to get the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this State to march in the streets and desecrate the precinct of this Parliament, he is now taking the high moral ground. He is taking a tough stand and is saying, "I will not deal with this rabble. I won't give them any more." I believe that the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are being used by the Government in a most despicable way. Their expectations will be dashed and will remain dashed. Labor members have spoken today with great passion of their feelings for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Earlier, the member for Cook said that those people are probably the most disadvantaged racial group in this nation, and I concur with that view. However, I will not accept that the deeds of grant in trust that were established in pioneering legislation by the National Party Government have been anything less than they were supposed to be. They gave to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people not something less than has been provided by this legislation; the DOGIT legislation did not provide something less than freehold land. If an honourable member cared to read the legislation and study it, he would discover that the effect of that legislation was to vest inalienable freehold title in Aboriginal and Islander people. I do not mind if different words are used to achieve the same end, but I do not believe that it does members of this Parliament any good to misrepresent the situation or misrepresent the intentions of the previous National Party Government. The DOGIT legislation was Legislative Assembly 8234 30 May 1991 good legislation. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, your Government may have been better advised to finetune that legislation to give to Aboriginal people what is rightly and properly theirs, rather than pretend to give them something that is not rightly and properly theirs any more than it is mine or anybody else's. They are the concerns that I wished to raise. However, those matters have been widely canvassed in the debate on this legislation today. I will take a different tack and talk about pieces of land that are covered by this legislation but have not been discussed today. Some of the problems that have arisen in relation to that type of land should be discussed because they have emerged since the original legislation was passed in 1985. I mention, in particular, small parcels of reserved land that are attached to the outskirts of rural towns throughout Queensland. Some of those small parcels of land—particularly one at Cooktown—have been claimed by Aboriginal groups and have been treated as theirs for a number of years. Because of my very brief encounter with the Community Services portfolio, it came to my notice that that land should rightly and properly have been granted to the Aborigine people. Mr Comben: How many days were you there? Mr GILMORE: I did not break any records. I went to great lengths to have the Department of Community Services and the Department of Lands look for ways of passing that land over to Aboriginal people and of making small reserve parcels of land become Aboriginal land. Under the existing legislation, it was a very difficult task because the legislation prescribed that local government responsibilities be attached to all the deeds of grant in trust. Under that legislation, I could not see then, and I cannot see now, how land that was subject to a stipulation that an area of, for example, 24 hectares should have local government control attached to it could have properly been handed over. It should have resided quite properly within the local government area in which it was placed. I then examined the deeds of grant that were available under the Land Act. It was my view that they were not secure enough in terms of tenure and that the land could be taken away by the Governor in Council at the stroke of a pen. It is for those reasons that I suggest that the legislation is not without some benefits. At least those pieces of land can now be provided under inalienable freehold title without the requirement of local government control attaching to it, which is probably an important advance. This legislation provides for the transfer of these small pieces of land to inalienable freehold title under Aboriginal control—or, perhaps, I should say "under Aboriginal ownership", although I am seriously concerned about the appointment of trustees, which I regard as a patronising act on the part of the Government that should not be applauded in any way—but some attendant difficulties are not addressed by the Bill. The problems to which I refer relate to the town-planning requirements of existing local government areas. For example, on the outskirts of Mareeba, there is a block of land with which I am very familiar. It is a reserve of land set aside for Aboriginal purposes and it contains between 16 and 20 acres. It is excellent land, which could well be turned into a dormitory suburb for Aboriginal housing. Let me raise the prospect of the further development of that land. Let us assume that ATSIC decides that it has sufficient funds for the construction of 50 to 80 houses. The first question to be asked is: will that land be subject to the ordinary town-planning requirements of a local authority area within which these parcels of land are located? The second question is: if that is the case, will the town council by-laws impose conditions for the provision of a town water supply, sewerage and kerbing and channelling? Considering that this land has inalienable title, it comes to mind that future problems could arise with the collection of fees and charges on inalienable land in Queensland. In her reply, I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to handle that so that there is some guarantee of future support for Aborigines on inalienable freehold land which is situated on reserves for Aboriginal purposes on the outskirts of rural towns? Mr Hayward: Are you talking about local government charges or something? Legislative Assembly 8235 30 May 1991

Mr GILMORE: Yes, I am. It is a matter of serious concern to me and will be a matter of concern not only to local government throughout Queensland but also to Aboriginal people who could possibly find themselves in the position of having their inalienable freehold title threatened by local government charges, that is, provided that this Government and the Commonwealth Government are not prepared to put in place adequate support mechanisms to ensure that that inalienable freehold land must survive. In the few minutes I have available, I will speak about a piece of land which is near and dear to my heart, one which I have spoken to the Minister about on a number of occasions and one which I worked very hard to have transferred to the Aboriginal people of this State. It is known as Mona Mona and I have spoken about it previously in this Parliament. It consists of approximately 1 200 hectares of land north of the Barron River and north west of Kuranda. It is the site of an old Seventh Day Adventist Aboriginal mission from which the Aboriginal people were taken in the fifties so that the land could be set aside for a dam reserve to provide water to the Barron River hydroelectric scheme. Since that time, the Flaggy Creek dam has not proceeded. It came to my notice that the land was there and that no other person had a rightful or proper claim on that land. It is my view that that land rightly and properly belongs to the Mona Mona people. Over a period, from both within and without the Ministry, I had much work done in attempting to have that land returned to those people. It was important to me then, and it is important to me now—and it is most certainly important to the people of Kuranda and the surrounding district who emanated from Mona Mona. Mr Gunn: What response are you getting from the Government? Mr GILMORE: None. During the period that we attempted to have that land transferred back to Aboriginal people, we attempted to appoint—"appoint" being the operative word—a board of trustees for that land. At that time, simply because of the problems that I have already outlined in terms of the deeds of grant in trust legislation and the inadequate tenure under deeds of grant under the Land Act, the best that we could achieve was a 75-year special lease. At that time, I was prepared, and the Aboriginal people of that community were prepared, to accept a 75-year priority special lease. I wager that in 75 years there will not be a Government on the face of this earth that would be prepared to dispossess those people of that land. That was the view that I took then, and it is the view that I take now. However, this Minister, after 18 months in this place, still has not managed to achieve that special lease for those people. She accused me of disturbing the peace at Kuranda, of dividing that community improperly and of making it almost impossible for them to come to an accord so that they could take over the trusteeship of that land. I make this point simple because, as the Minister is going to appoint trustees to all Aboriginal deeds of grant in this State, this legislation takes away the local government responsibilities of these people. She has not been able to appoint trustees to Mona Mona, even though, 18 months ago, the deed of grant in trust was already in place and only had to be signed. How will she proceed to provide appointed trustees? What a patronising move this is! These people are competent Queenslanders. They are entitled to and able to elect their own leaders, their own councils and, therefore, their own trustees. I wonder what it is that makes this Minister and this Premier believe that they are wiser than the councils of Aborigines in this State. I wonder what makes them so patronising that they believe that those people should be dispossessed of that single power that was given to them under the deeds of grant in trust in this State and has now been taken away because this patronising little lady, as the Minister responsible for those people, wants to take it away. She will make a mess of it, because she is unable to appoint a board of trustees to one single piece of land. How is she going to achieve it without a serious disruption of the social fabric of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people of this State? Because it is important that this issue be on the record of this Parliament, I will conclude by adding a few more words about Mona Mona. I am seriously disturbed that, as it is a reserve, it is excluded expressly from Aboriginal control under this legislation. I want this land to be gazetted. I plead with the Minister to make that land her first gazettal. Legislative Assembly 8236 30 May 1991

Ms Warner: Which reserve? Mr GILMORE: Mona Mona. It is one of the reserves that does not come within the legislation. I would like it gazetted. In so doing, I want the Minister to give an undertaking not only to the Aboriginal people but also to the people of Queensland that she will reserve and very carefully plan the area in which that dam ought to go. I will tell the Minister why. The Quaid road, which has been denigrated somewhat in this Parliament both recently and in the past, diagonally dissects that property above the high-water line of the dam. It goes in a straight line from Mona Mona to Kewarra beach. That water would be a very good supply of water to the northern beaches, the developing area north of Cairns. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would accept and acknowledge that. It would also provide a reserve supply of water for the hydroelectric scheme. However, most importantly, that water would be the most magnificent asset that this Government or any other Government could hand to the Aboriginal people of that area. It is about 12 kilometres in a straight line from the beaches north of Cairns and it would be water free of marine stingers and free of crocodiles, and a freshwater playground available to the tourism industry in northern Australia, which we are all applauding as possibly being the great white hope for this area. It would provide, and must provide, a secure future for those Aboriginal people. It must, and will, provide work for their children and for their children's children. It is important that when that land is gazetted, the Government takes cognisance of the need for that dam. I urge the Government not to rush in and simply hand that land to the Aboriginal people of the area and leave no provision for this Government or a future administration to construct that dam. It is important for the Aboriginal people, and it is important for the other people of far-north Queensland. Ms Warner: We'll let the community decide about the dam rather than you making a decision. Mr GILMORE: I take that interjection. If the Minister would be kind enough to ask those people whether they want that dam, they would be delighted to say to her, "Yes. Please, build the dam." Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (8.23 p.m.): Madam Deputy Speaker—— Mr Beattie: Be fair. Mr BOOTH: I am going to be very fair and practical. The debate on this Aboriginal Land Bill has been full of emotionalism and, with one or two exceptions, quite a lot of rubbish has been heard from the Government side. I am prepared to accept that the member for Cook endeavoured to make a contribution. He appealed for fairness and fair play. I appreciate that and respect him for it. However, I believe that all this Bill does is play to the emotions of the Aboriginal people. It does not get them anywhere. I will be very interested to hear the Minister tell the House in her reply whether the land can be mortgaged and, if so, under what conditions, because nothing can be done with this land unless some equipment can be put on it. It is my opinion that one of the most important things that the Government should be doing for Aboriginal people is trying to teach them skills to enable them to work the land—if land is going to be given to them—so that it can become viable and they will not have to rely on social security for everything. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr BOOTH: The member for Brisbane Central thinks that everybody wants a dole queue. I cannot understand the honourable member. He loves dole queues. That is where he wants to put these people. I do not think that anybody wants a dole queue. I have worked since the age of 14, and I am nearly 70. I never enjoyed it whenever I was out of work. I did plenty of work, and I did not enjoy being out of work or having a bit of a low bank balance. I do not think any of us likes to find ourselves in that position. Ms Warner: Aboriginal people work for the dole. It is called CDEP. They go one better than you. Legislative Assembly 8237 30 May 1991

Mr BOOTH: I could not hear what the Minister said, but I do not think it would have been very intelligent. I do not think I will worry about it. I do not want to blow it out of all proportion, but the damage that was done to the front of Parliament House was done because the man who is now the Premier of this State raised the expectations of these people. He conned them on election day and got their votes, and he has been conning them ever since. The other night, when he thought he would claw back a bit of public support, in the full blaze of the television cameras the Premier insulted these people in a way that I have never heard before, and I have been interested in politics for more than 50 years. I have never before heard a Premier of this State pick out a section of the people and say that they are drunken and diseased. I would not have been surprised if he had said it about the farming community, the graziers or anyone who lives in the country because it is well known that he hates them. What the Premier said about these people whom he has conned is just about the worst thing that has ever been said to anyone in my long time as a member of this Parliament. The Premier should be ashamed of himself. Any man who would say a thing like that is not fit to be Premier of this State. Let these members of the Government who have been backing up the Premier stand up and tell the House what they think of what he said to those people. I have said that this debate has been full of emotionalism. The Minister circulated a 14-page speech about how the Aboriginal people were knocked about years ago and what was done to them. I will not deny that. However, what I will say is that many white people were knocked about in those days, too, and a few of them died. Those white people had to battle to get a grip on this land. That is not appreciated by these people who sneer at the pioneers and the people who got out and did something. I want to comment on some remarks that were made by members on the Government side about some of these people dying for Australia. They did, and some of them were in the unit that I was in. However, I did not see any of them pull down the Australian flag and jump on it. I never saw any of that, and I do not think that the sincere and genuine Aborigines would do it. I think it is the rent-a-crowd people who do things like that. Mrs Bird: It's a shame the Irish aren't black. You could get two races at the same time. Mr BOOTH: I am going to say something about the Irish. I am glad that the honourable member reminded me. However, I have not got to that yet. The black deaths in custody are a sad blot on our history. However, the Government cannot tell people that they will never be put in prison no matter what they do. If the Government does that, there will be a lot of murders and all sorts of other crimes. In case I run out of time, I want to say something about inalienable freehold title, because I think it is a lot of rubbish. There is only one title, and that is freehold. If people such as the member for Brisbane Central want to do away with freehold title, why do they not say so? Only one member was game to say that, and that was the member for Isis. An Opposition member interjected. Mr BOOTH: The member for Isis is an honest man. He marches under the hammer and sickle. At least members of the Opposition know where they stand with him. They can go and have a drink with him and know where he stands. Mr Springborg: He's a straight Labor man. Mr BOOTH: He is a straight Labor man. He is one of the old Labor men that one hears about. There are not many of them left. It is a pity that he is not Premier. To be honest, he would be a better leader than the present Premier. A lady on the Government side said that that is the Irish in me. If one examines the history of Ireland—— Mrs Bird: I didn't say that at all. Legislative Assembly 8238 30 May 1991

Mr BOOTH: I did not intend to attack the honourable member. She did mention the Irish, and I thanked her for that. An Opposition member interjected. Mr BOOTH: I am not worried about what the member for Whitsunday said. About four years ago I was in southern Ireland. There are still groups of people there who have to work on peasant farms, on land that was handed to English officers who fought with Cromwell's army. This legislation deals with exactly the same thing. They fought in Cromwell's army and they were given some land. Many of them have been good landlords. One of them had offered the land of about 50 farms for sale back to the Irish Government, and it was said then in the Irish House that he wanted an enormous amount of money for it. He offered it back at about a third of what it was worth. The Irish Government bought the land back. I am not opposed to the Aboriginal people buying land if that is what they want to do, but I am opposed to taking land off someone. I listened to the member for Yeronga and the member for Brisbane Central and not once did they offer a piece of land near them. Mr Beattie: Where does the Bill say that? Mr BOOTH: It had to be someone else's land. When listening to the member for Brisbane Central, I thought that he would surely offer to give Musgrave Park to the Aborigines. Not a word from him on that. Mr Springborg: Nor his house. Mr BOOTH: Not a word from the member for Yeronga that he would give away his house; only somebody else's land. Government members want to give away somebody else's land. They want to put the boot into the grazier when his pastoral lease expires by taking the land off him and giving it away. The Government knows what it is trying to do. However, I do not have time to continue with that matter. I want to move on to the matter of national parks. Many people in my area and I am sure in the area of the member for Salisbury enjoy going to a national park with their children. People like me who are old and weary—— An Opposition member: And wearing a round hat. Mr BOOTH: Yes, and who wear a round hat still want to go to a national park. They will perhaps be willing to pay a charge if the park is kept nice and clean. But if they are going to be hassled in the national park, they will go there only once. No city people will ever use a national park if they are going to be hassled. The Government must make sure that does not happen. Why would any Government want to give away national parks? Government members sneer at what we have, but the previous Government was responsible for the declaration of many national parks and, in recent times, a lot of other land has been purchased for national parks. Why would anyone want to give away those national parks and create hassles? People will go there if they are hassled as they enter or if the parks are dirty. I am not suggesting that they will be dirty. Ms Warner: There are a number of national parks owned by Aboriginal people—Kakadu and Uluru. Mr BOOTH: Okay. They cannot be mined. I want to get on to mining rights now. If a white man owns a piece of land under which oil is found, he does not get the royalties, yet we have people here tonight saying Aborigines should get the royalties. Mr Beattie: You haven't read the Bill. Mr BOOTH: Yes, I have. The honourable member has been saying for weeks that people have not read the Bill. I assure him that in this Bill, especially in Division 4, there are a lot of things that would frighten people. I do not believe that the mining rights should be any different for Aborigines than for anyone else. I believe we are all the same and that we should all be treated the same. I do not see any reason why it Legislative Assembly 8239 30 May 1991 should be different. If the Government starts to give away someone else's land, it will soon find itself in trouble. If Government members want to give away land, they should give away their own land. That is where it starts. The member for Brisbane Central was an absolute disgrace. He got up and said, "Give this away; give that away." There was not one word about anything coming out of his electorate or anything like that. I now refer to Aborigines living in an urban situation, and most of mine do. Mr Ardill interjected. Mr BOOTH: Yes, the ones in Warwick do, and they are very good people. The reason they are good people is simply that they are all working. If we are to do anything for people in an urban situation, we must assist them to find jobs. The idea of this Government to throw as many people out of work as possible is dead wrong. There are dole queues everywhere. The Government has lengthened them. Mr Beattie: This will stop dole queues. Mr BOOTH: It will not stop dole queues, and the honourable member knows it. The only way to stop dole queues is to educate the Aborigines to work. If they are going to grow vegetables or something on the land, they will need water. I am not suggesting that they cannot be taught. The last speaker mentioned something about a dam, and there seemed to be sneers even from the Minister, which I could not understand. I believe that people are entitled to work and that every opportunity should be given to them to enable them to work. That applies to white as well as black people in this country. About 18 months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Zambia, a country that is very proud of its black ancestry and in which very great efforts are being made to try and get the people working. Many people in that country are unemployed, and one of the reasons is that they are not educated enough to be able to fence the land, grow the crops and attend to them. I think that in Queensland we have people with the knowledge, who would be able to educate the Aborigines and show them how to manage the land. Perhaps not all of them will make a living, but many of them will. I turn now to reserves. I know that only a genius could do away with reserves immediately but, if anything is to be done about the Aboriginal problem, Aborigines have to be assimilated back into the normal population. In Warwick we have some fine people. There is a little bit more of a problem now because the number of Aborigines living in Warwick is larger than it was some years ago. I think the reason for that is that some of them absconded from the Toomelah reserve and other reserves further away. I perhaps do not even blame them for that. At times, we like to big-note ourselves and say how good Aboriginals are. We love them on the football field and we love them in the boxing ring, where their skills and fast reflexes give them some advantage or some greater ability to perform. We like to cheer them in those pursuits. However, we do not like to do very much for them otherwise. I have not seen even the member for Brisbane Central coming into this place with big groups of them with him as minders. My belief is that, if it is persevered with, this Bill can do some good for the Aborigines, but not if it is used merely as an emotional issue with the Premier dumping a bucket on them as soon as it suits him. Right from the start, he should have realised that, if the Bill was not persevered with, it would not be much good to the Aboriginal people. Every time a member discusses a Bill in this place, members opposite shout, "You haven't read the Bill." In relation to clause 2.16, the Explanatory Notes state— " 'City or town land' (which is not available for claim) . . ." It is no wonder that city members say that everything should be given away. The notes in relation to clause 2.17 state— " 'Township land' (which is not available for claim) . . ." In relation to clause 2.18, the Explanatory Notes state— "Available Crown land includes any National Park (where that land has been gazetted under 2.12)." Legislative Assembly 8240 30 May 1991

A lot of national park area will be handed over to the Aboriginals. In that regard, some care will have to be taken, because national parks have been great places for entertainment. Many people like to go to them. However, if national parks are not administered properly, that is no good. I am very worried that, with the passage of this Bill, many people who go near national parks will be hassled or frightened away. People will not go near them. If they are hassled, they will go only once. Mr Palaszczuk: No. Mr BOOTH: The honourable member for Archerfield made a very bad mistake today. It was the worst mistake I have ever heard. Actually, I will put it second to the mistake that the Premier made when he said that Aborigines were drunken and diseased. Nevertheless, the honourable member for Archerfield made a really bad mistake today. The Speaker then gave him a thumping over it and made him apologise. I think the honourable member for Archerfield had better keep out of the debate for the rest of the day. I predict that there will be difficulties with this legislation. I think I am right, but I hope I am wrong. Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (8.40 p.m.): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate tonight. At the outset, I make it clear that I do not condone our forebears' past actions and I do not attempt to excuse them. However, I refuse to be a part of a national guilt syndrome that will leave me or anybody else feeling sorry forever for what happened to the Aboriginal people in this country. I do not like it. I sympathise with them. However, if we all look back through our history, whether it be here in Australia or elsewhere in the world, we will see that our forebears have been dispossessed and we have not had a very good run. It depends on how far one wants to take that. I am not a racist. As a young person at school, I was often picked on and antagonised by the other white people because I in fact stood up for the Aboriginal students. I stood up for them because I believed that they and the Aboriginal people should be equal to all Queenslanders. I have a dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal. I stress the word "equal". My dream is just the same as that of Martin Luther King Jnr. And would he not turn in his grave if he saw this pathetically racist legislation? There is no other way of describing it. Would he not also have turned in his grave if he had seen the absolute rabble which swarmed the gates of Parliament only last Thursday and again yesterday? The desecration of Parliament, the anarchy, the thuggery and the vandalism were brought about by the Government sending misleading signals to the Aboriginal people. I do not condone what happened in front of Parliament House yesterday, nor do the majority of Queenslanders—and nor should they. We should be sending a signal to those people that that action should never again be taken. The cost of that vandalism should be deducted from Aboriginal funding. I challenge the Government to show its commitment by implementing equal rights for both whites and blacks. It should not introduce legislation that treats Aborigines as something different from human beings, or legislation that treats Aborigines as being over and above the average white citizens, and it certainly should not introduce legislation that only widens the rift in white/black relations. That is exactly what this legislation is on about. It appears to me that this Government has taken the writings of George Orwell too seriously. That is concerning many people. When, in his book Animal Farm, George Orwell said that some are more equal than others, he was only joking. I am speaking for hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders in the community who are absolutely sick and tired of what they see, namely, Aborigines apparently being given special attention, special rights and special privileges. The time has come for that sort of an attitude to come to an end, and an end for all time. Mr Hayward: You are talking absolute garbage. It is a disgrace. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member can degrade what I am saying, but I point out to him that it is a genuine concern that many people have. Equality should Legislative Assembly 8241 30 May 1991 now be a priority of this Government and of future Governments. Clearly, this can be achieved by only one means. That means is to ultimately—and this will cause consternation to many members in this House—abolish the entire Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and to totally reject any concept, including the one that lies before the House, calling for special attention to be given to a certain group based on the colour of their skin or on their race. Everyone knows what it means if people are judged by the colour of their skin or their race. It means racism. As far as I am concerned, racism has no place in Queensland. Aborigines should be treated on an equal basis to all other Queenslanders. Ultimately, there should not be any Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, just as there is no department for European descendants' affairs and no department for the affairs of Chinese-born Australians. I suggest to this House that there is no way that we should be passing legislation that provides land rights for Aborigines, and Aborigines alone, because that heightens racial tension in the community. Mr Palaszczuk: It does not. Mr SPRINGBORG: It does. The honourable member can say that all he wants. He is misleading the electorate. I am not a racist. This legislation provides ways and means for Aborigines to claim land—land that no other citizens of Queensland are entitled to claim. That entitlement is given on provisions that are available only to Aboriginals and to no-one else, and on criteria that apply exclusively to Aborigines. If that is not racism, I do not know what is. This land rights Bill totally excludes white people on the basis of race and the colour of their skin. I put it to the Minister that this land rights Bill achieves absolutely and positively nothing. I repeat "nothing"! Obviously, the Minister has turned a blind eye to the real problems of Aborigines. Government members have claimed that this legislation will be the great panacea that will fix all the problems of Aboriginals. It is not even a start. I challenge the Minister to tell me what this legislation achieves for Aboriginal people. What about the crime rate, alcoholism rate and unemployment rate among Aborigines, about which we are all concerned? How does land rights legislation fix those problems? I suggest to the Minister that it does absolutely nothing. It fails totally. Might the Minister tell this House exactly how this legislation fixes the most major, fundamental and worrying problem that faces whites and blacks in Queensland? I refer to the problem of integration—the process of bringing whites and Aboriginal people together in harmony. This Government has already significantly damaged that harmony. What do honourable members think about this Government's decision to drop proceedings against Aborigines involved in the 1987 race riots in my electorate? That was very upsetting. The Government's decision is causing a great deal of consternation. Can members blame people for thinking that Aboriginals are more equal before the law? That is what people are thinking. By bringing this legislation before the House, the Government will heighten those tensions. This Government is continuing this policy of racial separation. This Bill, which allows for recognition of separate races and separate development, widens the rift between white and black Australians. That is unfortunate. Another word for separate development—and the Government does not like this word—is "apartheid". That is most certainly not something that Queenslanders want. If the majority of Aboriginal people wish to be truthful with themselves, they must admit that they have no desire to go back and live the way that their culture lived more than 200 or 300 years ago. They want to enjoy the white way of life. I believe that the powers that organise and run the Aboriginal movement—whether they be white advisers or Aboriginal manipulators at the top—are using land rights to incite Aboriginal people to head in a direction in which they do not necessarily want to go. I must tell the House that I was extremely impressed with the way that the Premier, Wayne Goss, managed to portray an image on national television that Aborigines were going to get almost nothing from this Bill. Radio B105 portrayed it well when it broadcast that the Premier gave the Aborigines three- fifths of five-eighths of nothing. Didn't the media fall for it! I congratulate not the Premier but his advisers, who have once again Legislative Assembly 8242 30 May 1991 earned their trip from Canberra to Queensland. The Premier's Canberra advisers have played a very dangerous game of deceit. This Bill opens up a Pandora's box. This Government and the people of Queensland know that. This sinister aspect of the Bill will be revealed in the future. All members know that the Premier's office sent out two statements on the Aboriginal Land Bill. The one that was distributed to the general media and the community gave the impression of Aboriginal bashing. Unfortunately, that is the way that it was received. The Premier and the Minister know that Queenslanders are becoming revolted by what they see as the special attention, privileges, compensations and rights that are bestowed on Aboriginal communities. The other statement that was sent out to Aboriginal communities actually explained what was in this legislation for Aborigines. It really is nothing short of extensive. Why does this Government not come clean with the people of Queensland and explain what this legislation really means? The Government is too dishonest to do so. I shall spell out to the House exactly what the extensive future implications of the Bill will be. The Government is not telling the community about that. The Government will regret this, and will totally detest anybody reminding it about this issue, which is doomed to haunt it. This Government has been too blatant in its neglect for the security, protection and better development of all Queenslanders—both black and white. I am very upset about what happens to Aboriginal people. I sympathise with them. This is the wrong way to go about fixing their problems. Dare I ask the Minister how carefully she has studied present and past examples of race relations in other countries? It is too obvious that she has not. From my research, it is also obvious that she has neglected her responsibilities. Of prime concern to me is the intention of this Bill to introduce a Land Claims Tribunal, which will make recommendations to the Minister on resolving Aboriginal land claims. By past example, that Land Claims Tribunal is bound to fail, because it adds to disputes, heightens racial tension and is allowed to make recommendations that will pressure the Government into making amendments to legislation—not only the Aboriginal Land Act but also water resources legislation and forestry legislation. That will lead to future and unplanned substantial gains for Aboriginal people in this State. That is the experience of land tribunals in the past. It surprises me that the Minister clearly has no knowledge of them, or perhaps she is only too aware of them—and in great detail. This so-called innocuous Bill, which pretends to pander to Queensland's conservative middle ground, is designed to lull people into a false sense of security. The Government is aware of this. By simple amendment in the future, the scope of the Aboriginal Land Act will mean the alienation of whites. How can the Minister be so blind as to ignore what is going on right next door to Australia? I refer to New Zealand. In recent years, New Zealand has witnessed an upsurge in Maori violence. We have all seen the upsurge in resentment of white people towards Maoris. That is very unfortunate. If the Minister had bothered to find out why that is occurring, she would have found that it is a direct result of legislation that is similar to this legislation which the Government is pushing through the House at a suspiciously fast pace. More particularly, it is the result of the establishment in 1985 of a Land Claims Tribunal by this Government's Labor colleagues in New Zealand. Look at the mess that race relations in New Zealand are in at the moment. They are not very good in Australia, either, and I do not believe that they will improve while we pursue legislation such as this. The demonstrations that occurred recently outside this Parliament House are evidence of that. This Government's Labor colleagues in New Zealand started to raise expectations, to insinuate things and to lay the very groundwork on which further land claims—more substantial land claims and future land claims—could be made. The very same system that this Government is proposing has been tried and failed in New Zealand, which is a predominantly European country on our doorstep—not some tin-pot, far-flung Third World nation, but New Zealand. That is very, very significant. If the Government cannot learn from the examples of other places—whether it be in Australia, across the Tasman or anywhere else in the world—when they have pursued a way of fixing up their race relations with indigenous people, it will never learn and history will judge it on its failure. Legislative Assembly 8243 30 May 1991

The Aboriginal Land Bill is a tool that will allow substantial gains for Aboriginal people--there is no doubt about that—through amendments to other legislation such as the Water Resources Act, the Mining Act, the Fisheries Act—and what else? I am complaining because I do not believe that land rights is the way to fix Aboriginal problems. It is obvious that that only heightens racial tension in the community. This is step one, and the Government knows it. Aboriginal land claims will not end here—and both the Minister and the Premier know it. Everybody in Queensland also knows it. In fact, on Statewide television last night, the Minister admitted it. Today, the Minister has already been quoted. I will quote her— "This is not the last word on the legislation and it is not the last word on land rights." That, Mr Speaker, is an admission that this is step one. I put it to the Minister: once this Bill is inevitably passed, what will happen to all of the other ALP policy on Aboriginal affairs? Will it dissolve and vanish into thin air? Or will the ALP hold on to its pathetically warped policy? Honourable members know the one—the one that recognises the invasion of Europeans and that Aboriginal land was stolen; the one about giving away our national parks; the one that allocates money from land tax into a special fund for land acquisition for Aboriginal people; the one that gives mining rights—— Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I do not agree with that. I was referring to the policy that threatens the security, the stability and the prosperity of Queensland. The Minister cannot give a guarantee that those policies will be forever forgotten. The guarantee will not come, and she knows it. She is too afraid of losing her ministerial lurks and perks to back her party's policy, even though she would love to do so on a matter of principle. The Government knows, Opposition members know, and I hope that the people know, that this is the very first step. The Government is preparing the groundwork for claim after claim. Mr Prest interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: This is not Mr Borbidge's speech. The honourable member should be more constructive in this House instead of sitting there, making inane interjections during question-time and being disgusting, as he sometimes is. The reason why I put this speech on paper is that I wanted to get in context the thoughts that came to me the other day. The Government is preparing the loopholes for the sole purpose of political gain. However, the most disgusting thing that it is doing is giving ordinary Queenslanders a false impression of security—a sense of security that all land is safe. Well, it is not, and the Government knows that it is not. Rather than trying to implement its racist policy—which it is—how about Government members sitting down and addressing the real issues, the real problems. Land rights achieves nothing but segregation. The Government is not capable at looking at the overall context. How does land rights solve the social problems? It does not. How does land rights alleviate the tensions between whites and blacks? It does not. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I just gave an explanation for that. How does land rights help Aborigines integrate? It does not. Surely, those are the matters that the Government should be considering. On numerous occasions in the past, we have seen Aborigines in other parts of Australia receive land rights. Their problems do not go away, and the people who claim land rights claim more and more. They go on claiming land because they think that it is the only way to get themselves out of their situation—their underlying problems of social destitution. They think that land rights is the only way out. Unfortunately, it is not. But, to no avail—the drunkenness continues, the violence continues, the low self-esteem continues and the unemployment continues. Tell me, how does land rights create new jobs for Aborigines? How does land rights help those Aboriginal children Legislative Assembly 8244 30 May 1991 for whom we are trying to provide a future? It does not, and the Government knows it. Mrs Edmond: It gives them self-esteem. Mr SPRINGBORG: It does not give them self-esteem, and it has not done so anywhere else in Australia. We must ask ourselves: why land rights? What does it achieve? Land rights, in any form, achieves nothing but increased racial tension. The evidence is there the world over, and racial tension is all that it achieves. Who wants land rights, other than a few people—a handful of Aboriginal extremists and the people that they incite. They do not, by any means, represent the majority of Queenslanders or, for that matter, Australians. The protesters who were outside this House last Thursday and yesterday were not protesting against the principle of the legislation, nor were they representative of decent Aboriginal people. I am sure that decent Aboriginal people in the community would have been very upset at the way in which some of those people—not all of them black—tore down the front gate and vandalised the property of the Parliament. The Government members and the other individuals who were out there the other day see eye to eye. The only difference is in degree. The time has come to right the wrongs of the Aboriginal system. All men are created equal. The Aboriginal Land Bill discriminates against non-Aboriginal people. That will be proved in the future. However, of particular concern are the loopholes in the legislation and the diversification of decision- making power. We all know that the legislation is step one. The wording gives it away. The Minister has admitted it. There is no need whatsoever for this Bill, so why put it in place if it is not to serve as the launching pad for the further implementation of ALP policy? There is absolutely no reason at all other than to fulfil ALP policy in the long term. Let us have a look at ALP policy on land rights. Let us have a look at how successful land rights have been in other parts of Australia. Let us all have a very close look at the Northern Territory example, where land rights have run rife. I suggest to the House that the Minister listen to the Honourable Marshall Perron, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory—— Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: For all that Government members want to degrade things, they should listen to people who have practical experience. They should listen to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory because, with 48 per cent of the Northern Territory under Aboriginal control, he knows exactly what land rights means. Marshall Perron will tell them exactly what the impact is on both whites and blacks. The Northern Territory, which has put up with 12 years of continuous litigation, has seen its community become divided. Marshall Perron will tell Government members that. Maybe the Government should put its puerile political grievances to one side and seriously take note of the devastating result in the Northern Territory. Marshall Perron will say that it has created jobs for judges and white bureaucrats; it has made lawyers wealthy; it has created career paths for anthropologists; and it has not helped the real wants of the Aboriginal people. I suppose that the chronic alcoholism is a thing of the past. I suppose that the crippling Aboriginal unemployment is also a thing of the past. I suppose that Aborigines are better educated and have taken on better and more secure jobs. I suppose that all of those things have happened—have they all happened since land rights were introduced in the Northern Territory?Absolutely not. I do not want members to interpret my comments incorrectly. I assure members that the people of Queensland have no objection to land rights—in fact, they want Aborigines to have land rights—but they must be exactly the same as the land rights afforded to everyone else. If Aborigines purchase their own land and develop it, that is great and no- one has any objection. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (9 p.m.): When forming my opinion on this legislation, I started from the point of view that Australia is in a very unique position. It is the only continent on earth that is one nation. Australia is made up of many ethnic groups and we have built on them extremely well. All sorts of people have come to Australia from all parts of the world. To a certain extent they all keep their own customs, Legislative Assembly 8245 30 May 1991 and yet somehow we have forged ourselves as a nation. As people we have our own Australian characteristics. We assimilate extremely well. There are always some tensions present, but we blend together to make one nation. Anything that is detrimental to the assimilation of the people of this nation should be avoided. I was happy with the DOGIT legislation because it furthered this assimilation. Under that legislation we allowed Aborigines to take over the land and to determine for themselves how they should develop and control it. I am disappointed that this legislation takes a step backwards from that point and in fact becomes an act of paternalism, because the Government will once again take control and direct the people in the DOGIT communities. The DOGIT legislation was appropriate for those Aboriginal people who still live the sort of life that is closely associated with living on and with the land. The biggest problem is that this legislation does not properly address the problems of Aboriginal people who live in urban communities. We must keep the idea of assimilation in the background and work towards that aim. Everyone who chooses to live in an urban area gives up some association with the land. For generations, young people have been growing up in my electorate and, because there are no jobs there, they have to leave and adapt to life in the city. We have adopted certain lifestyles, rules and regulations in order to live in modern urban society. Public parklands and national parks have been set aside so that everyone can go back and get a feeling for the land. People who live in a town appreciate that they have to live close together, and those parks are made available so that they can go back to the land. The assimilation of this nation will be done a great disservice if some exclusive use of these lands in urban areas is set aside for one race alone. I appreciate that these people feel frustrated because they want to get ahead. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Carnarvon said, land rights does not equal self-esteem. If the Aboriginal people think it through and consider all the things that are unique about Australia, they would realise that an urban lifestyle demands that we share these sorts of facilities. If we want to have an association with land—and people in all ethnic groups do—we have to do it on a shared basis without any exclusivity. In addition, other aspects of urban life should be shared by all. I am referring to Government services such as housing, education, health-care, special access to the law and all those sorts of things. I am sure that the average person in Australia would say that we are a pretty generous nation with a social conscience. When compared with other nations of the world, Australia looks after people in need. There would be a lot of people in Australia who would say that we are extremely generous to Aboriginal people. The average Australian person takes pride in seeing a battler get on, regardless of where he comes from. I am also aware of a sense of disappointment in the community at large when, with the best of intentions, successive Governments have tried to address this problem. There is some sort of resentment that some of the social benefits we try to hand out and the assistance we try to give is not used to best advantage. There is some sort of resentment when people see public money not being put to the best use. I listened to the speeches made by previous Opposition speakers, and I agree with them. In my capacity as Minister for Education, I travelled widely throughout the State. I was asked by the Department of Education to fund special programs in the Torres Strait island schools and in Aboriginal schools in the peninsula region north of Cairns. On one particular occasion, I called at Kowanyama to open a school that had an enrolment of 250 pupils. I was there as Minister for Education to open the building and there were fewer than 50 children in attendance. The same thing occurred recently in Aurukun, and that brought home to me the fact that there is a basis for the resentment. Perhaps it has been done the wrong way, but one cannot deny that there is a resentment out there in the general population that public money is not being put to the best possible use. I believe that deeds of grant in trust were going in that direction and members on the Government side of the House obviously believe that this piece of legislation is also going down that path. I do not agree with them. The other day the Premier said—and it is one of the few things on which he and I agree—that there is a responsibility on the Aboriginal people themselves. If they are going to make it—and they have come a long way—they are the ones who have to help themselves the most. Mr Beattie: That's why they need land rights. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I do not agree with the member for Brisbane Central. Many of them are accepting that challenge and they have come a long way. In urban society the young people are more articulate and self-assured, but we will be doing them a disservice if we give them exclusive use of lands that other people living in urban societies should share. I turn now to the relevance of a Bill that was passed through this House on Tuesday, that is, the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill. Honourable members will recall that I took exception to the use of extrinsic material by the courts to interpret the law. That Bill states that magistrates can use second- reading speeches, preambles, official debates and other things to come up with an interpretation of what the law should be. I was alarmed when I read the Minister's second-reading speech and the Preamble—and I am reminded of the comments made by the honourable member for Warrego—to note words such as "dispossessed", and "former ownership". The Labor Government has some members who are learned in the law. They have overlooked an important fact, and I must sound a note Legislative Assembly 8246 30 May 1991 of warning at this stage. The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill, which allows the courts to draw on second-reading speeches in arriving at decisions, will create a minefield that could cause great divisions in this nation. There are better ways of overcoming the problems than those provided in this Bill. It is of paramount importance to preserve the togetherness that has developed in Australia, but this Government has put in place legislation that will come back and bite it. I now wish to refer to some of the politicking and posturing that has gone on in the last few weeks. When the Government first came to power, the Honourable Anne Warner was appointed as Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. One would have thought that she would have taken charge of the preparation of this legislation, but I understand that certain people in her department were drawing up this legislation. The Premier being the person he is—very vain—perceived the opportunity to enjoy a political honeymoon and seized the chance to grab the high moral ground. He realised there was a widely held expectation in the Aboriginal community and announced, "There will be land rights legislation coming forward." What has eventuated is a bit of a let-down, and he is now turning to damage control. In the first instance, the Premier insulted his own Minister, and I do not know why she does not resign. He took control of the legislation away from her, and Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and the Premier were cloistered in the Premier's office. They put together this legislation and the Premier made all the announcements. There were two different types of announcements in relation to the Government's policy, and suddenly the crabs started to come out. The Premier decided that the Minister should come to the fore and that he would step back like the Duke of Plaza Toro, who was the last man into battle and the first man out. Now the Premier is posturing and saying, "These people want too much. I am going to save Queensland. I am it. I am the bloke who is going to save the situation.", but he did not hold up the gates to the Parliament the other day. The Premier is shamming. I can understand the disappointment and the anger that led people to demonstrate against this legislation. They know they have been conned. I do not believe that urban Aborigines think that land rights equals self-esteem, which equals progress. I urge the people concerned to think about this legislation very carefully. I believe that Australian society has the capacity to help Aboriginal and Islander people through the provision of Government services, but if the Government takes action that creates separatism, it will do a great disservice to those people and to the nation. Mr COOPER (Roma—Leader of the Opposition) (9.11 p.m.): When the Premier put forward the proposal for this legislation, I said at the outset that it was the most Legislative Assembly 8247 30 May 1991 divisive proposal that anyone could suggest and probably one of the cruelest propositions that anyone—be he black, white or brindle—could put forward. I said that because he has raised the hopes and expectations of Aborigines and Islanders with the full knowledge that he would never be able to follow through. The Premier knew that those hopes and aspirations would become mere illusions and would ultimately be dashed. That is exactly what has happened. A few months ago, the Premier put forward this proposal but provided no guidelines. He raised in Aborigines and Islanders the hope that their relationship with the land would move to a higher standard. Because no guidelines were provided, they wondered what on earth the policy meant. ALP policy is expressed in extremely generous terms, and these people based their claims on those policies. The claims made by the Aboriginal coordinating councils were very much in line with ALP policy. When the Premier found that the issue was becoming too hot to handle and that he was getting his fingers burnt, he ran very quickly for cover—at the great expense of the Aboriginal people. I believe this is one of the cruelest acts I have ever witnessed and I do not believe that the Premier will ever forget what he has done. Mr Prest interjected. Mr COOPER: Members of the Labor Party raised these hopes and expectations through ALP policy. If they engage in that form of politics, they should follow through. It has been stated many times that members of the National Party have no truck at all with the demonstrations that have taken place in the parliamentary precincts. No-one could condone the desecration and sacrilege to which the Australian and Queensland flags were subjected, nor to the structure of this Parliament. No-one would condone the symbolism of that action, but the people concerned cannot be blamed entirely. After all, they have had their hopes, expectations and aspirations dashed to the ground. Who can blame them for feeling angry? I believe that the Bill before the Parliament has been badly mishandled. It has been rushed into the Parliament. Why on earth could the Bill have not lain on the table for a couple of months so that people—be they black, white or brindle—would have had an opportunity to provide input? If the Government wanted to do something about Aboriginal land rights, it should have provided an opportunity for opinion to be expressed by all cross-sections of society. This legislation was not necessary, because Aboriginal land rights were dealt with in 1984. Since that year until the present, tremendous progress has been made in improving the well-being of Aboriginal and Islander people. No- one can deny that fact. I am sure that members on both sides of the Chamber have had a great deal to do with Aboriginal people, just as they have had a great deal to do with people from all walks of life. It does not matter which social strata a person comes from, the colour of his skin or his creed; the National Party believes that the only way for Queensland to advance is by all the people working together. If the Government becomes aware of disadvantaged people, of course moves must be made to help them. The emphasis in this legislation should have been placed on that approach, and I was part of the moves that were made in 1984 to achieve that aim. I commend the member for Flinders on his speech. He is certainly steeped in knowledge of the Aboriginal and Islander people, because he has lived among them. Many members of the National Party, in common with Jim Killen, have swum "bare-arsed in the Condamine", metaphorically speaking, and—also metaphorically speaking—I have swum "bare-arsed" in the Pickanjinnie Creek at Wallumbilla. That is not a patronising approach. It is simply a matter of working and playing together, which is the way it should be. The moment that we start bringing down legislation that causes division or separate advancement for different people, that is when trouble will occur. It will cause divisiveness and we will have black against black, white against white and then white against black, which is the last thing that this State needs. We have witnessed examples of those occurrences around the world and we should be steering away from them. When I was elected as a member of Parliament in 1983, Woorabinda, which is in the Baralaba/Duaringa district, was in my electorate. As I had never been there, I was keen to visit Legislative Assembly 8248 30 May 1991

Woorabinda and observe conditions there. I had heard much about Aboriginal communities and was apprehensive about what I would discover. My first impression of Woorabinda was not as had been painted many times in the media, that it was a ramshackle shanty town; it was not. At that time, it had a population of 600 or 700 people. It had paved streets, water and sewerage, schools, hospitals, social clubs, sporting clubs, 60 000 or 70 000 acres of land, 2 000 or 3 000 head of cattle and irrigation from the creek. I was impressed and started to take a real interest in that community. I found the people had a wonderful nature. They were the sorts of people I could easily warm to, and I did. Because I enjoyed that experience so much, during the three years that Woorabinda was in my electorate I spent more time there than I spent at any other town in my electorate. I learnt very much from the Aboriginal people. They were trusting people. I thought that the last thing on earth that we could ever do would be to raise their hopes and let them down. That would not be fair to them. When Bob Katter was Minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs, I was a member of his committee which investigated the massive process of bringing forward the Aboriginal legislation that was introduced in 1984. We did not achieve that by visiting the Aboriginal and Islander communities and telling them what we thought they should have; it was a listening process. We wanted to see what they wanted rather than raise their hopes and expectations. They did not have grand ideas or massive ambit claims. Their ideas were very realistic and straightforward. We wrote the legislation from the ground up. It took a long time and much involvement. However, that involvement was enriching and fulfilling, and I believe that they achieved similar benefits from the process. We gave them the same authority and responsibilities as local authorities, with provision for them to make their own by-laws. It meant that the permit system was abolished. Just as they were able to shop in our towns, we were also able to visit their towns to shop. It also meant that they could elect their own councils, which they did. At one stage, the communities said that they wanted to control their own affairs and that they did not want people from outside, be they black, white or brindle, coming in and telling them what to do. They wanted laws to protect them from that. We said, "We will not write the laws; you write them by introducing by-laws." They were able to make their own arrangements in that regard. It was obvious that they would have trouble in handling money, because they had no experience at that. Much has to be done in the area of accountability. Another problem relates to alcoholism, which affects people across-the-board. Alcoholism amongst Aboriginal communities is frightfully sad. However, it cannot be cured by white people; any solution to the problem must be an initiative of the Aboriginal communities. Alcohol has a greater effect on Aborigines than on other races and it is destroying their race. In time, they will realise that that is happening. We must devote ourselves to alleviating problems with education and health as well as the alcohol problem. If we devote ourselves to that area, we will have a better chance of integrating the two communities in the next 50 or 100 years than we will by raising people's hopes by offering land rights that do not exist, by offering them national parks and then taking them back, and by offering mineral rights, quarrying rights and forestry rights and then denying them those rights. We should not be giving Aboriginal people false hopes and expectations. We should be concentrating on the present and the future, not the past. Today, I received a letter addressed to the Premier dated 29 May from John Newfong, the Chairman of the Indigenous Council of Deputies, which epitomises how those people feel. It stated— "Dear Mr Premier, I am instructed by the gravest concerns of my Councillors to issue this invitation to you to attend the Council in its current session. We should be pleased for you to attend the Council when it convenes at 12.00-1.30 p.m., 30.5.91 in Queen Victoria Park, bordered by North Quay, George St, Elizabeth St and the original Executive Building." Legislative Assembly 8249 30 May 1991

They were trying to give the Premier an indication of where it was so that he would not miss it. The letter continued— "The aforementioned concerns arise from the fact that, while the Council made every attempt to meet an impossible deadline set by the Premier's Department for the Council's submission with regard to the legislation now before the House, and, despite the Premier's Department having subsequently extended that deadline for this Council, along with extended deadlines for a number of other ATSIC Regional Councils in southern Queensland, the Government proceeded, in the meanwhile, to table its Bill regardless of its extensions of these deadlines. Apart from the fact that the Government has acted with what has already been described so aptly as such indecent haste, it did not see fit, at any time, to pay ATSIC Regional Councils in Queensland the common courtesy of supplying them with even the most cursory Discussion Paper, but only with inadequate and hurried briefing at which staff of the Premier's Department were unauthorized to provide Councils with enough details of the legislation for Councils to adopt a properly informed approach to the preparation of submissions." The Government claims constantly to be accountable and open, yet it treats people like that. It is a disgrace. The letter continues— "However, from such limited and hurried briefings and a subsequent de facto briefing along similar lines at a general land rights conference in Cairns, it became clear that the Government would seek to court the acquiescence of the so-called 'real Aborigines' of the far north of Queensland, in enshrining even further in legislation the dispossession of urban and rural Aborigines in the rest of the State; and it was clearly suggested at this conference that any form of land rights would be the sole preserve only of those who might adopt the stance of the pristine noble savage in relative isolation and removed from the effects of the white invasion, the full brunt of which should be left to urban and rural Aborigines to continue to bear. Is it the Goss Government's intention that the great majority of Aborigines in Queensland are to survive only on a postage stamp in much the same way the Scottish Highlander survives only on a tin of biscuits?" The final part of the letter stated— "It would have been a mere puffery to call the Government's legislation a State-wide Aboriginal land rights Act when the Government clearly preferred to grant only a concessional form of land rights in the Far North. As it now turns out, the Government has not even done this, and to call its legislation a land rights Act at all is an even greater puffery." The letter also stated— "We have the gravest misgivings that the Government's real intentions in this matter look very much like an attempt to extinguish our rights of prior ownership and possessory title in Common Law before the High Court hands down its ruling in the Mabo case. We also have the gravest misgivings that the Goss Government, in a covert exercise in the kind of Federalist collusion that usually characterises the Coalition Parties, is doing the Federal Government's dirty work by 'giving us something to shut us up' so we will not blow away the House of Cards the Hawke Government is trying to assemble with its proposed Council of Reconciliation, in order that it will look better than it deserves in an international community in which land rights is considered to be very much a concomitant component of human rights. Because of such grave concerns as we feel compelled to express, even at this eleventh hour and during the passage of the Bill through the House, it is not too late for the legislation to be amended substantially or, preferably—since we have little trust in the Government's intentions in this matter, withdrawn completely. Legislative Assembly 8250 30 May 1991

We know the Premier will understand the short notice this invitation allows him and urge him, despite this, to accept it. We are also sorry, knowing the Premier's Imperial preferences for the 'far-flung', that we are unable to provide him with a venue as exotic as the Cape York Peninsula. Nevertheless, the venue we have nominated is equally newsworthy and, being within walking distance of the Parliament, will not require the Premier's use of the State Government aircraft." That more or less finishes the letter. I believe that that letter epitomises exactly what the Aboriginal people now think of this Government—a Government which held out such hope to them. The Opposition believes that the Government should be addressing the real issues. If the Government is really going to try to advance Aboriginal people and integrate them in society, it should be concentrating on giving them as much assistance as possible instead of raising their hopes and dashing them. I believe that overall this debate has been conducted in a responsible fashion. I believe that all honourable members genuinely have the feelings of Aboriginal people at heart. Although all legislation affects people, not all legislation affects all people as deeply as this piece of legislation does. It will be landmark legislation in that it has raised and then destroyed the hopes of Aboriginal people. I think that in their heart of hearts, members of the Government will feel badly about that when this legislation is passed tonight. Mr Gunn: Mr Goss has not been in here all day. He hasn't entered this House. Mr COOPER: No. He has made a lot of promises. At one stage this legislation was the responsibility of the Minister now in charge of the Bill. Then it was realised that she could not be entrusted with the drafting of the legislation. The Premier decided to take that task from her and draft the legislation himself. It was done in conjunction with producer groups, the mining council and other bodies throughout the State. I have spoken to a number of those producer groups and people involved in the mining industry. They were told that, unless they accepted this legislation, they were going to cop land rights legislation in its entirety, which meant getting something similar to the Northern Territory model. They were told that, unless they supported this legislation, that is what they would get. Mr McGRADY: I rise to a point of order. Would the Leader of the Opposition like to identify the people in the mining industry? He is not telling the truth. Mr COOPER: Yes, I am telling the truth. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr COOPER: I am quite aware that there was no point of order. I am not in the habit of going around dobbing on people. I have a lot to do with those people, and they told me that they were told that they had no choice. They said that a gun was held at their heads. They had to agree to this legislation, or that is what they would get. That is how this Government treats people. To hell with the Aboriginal and Islander people! The Government is going to make a political deal so that there can be an appearance in the community that it is doing the right thing in regard to land rights, but it is not. When you try to please all, you please none. There are no benefits for anyone in this legislation—absolutely none at all. This is probably the most tragic piece of legislation that I have seen introduced in the Parliament. It cruelly destroys the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people. The Opposition opposes the Bill in its entirety. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (9.29 p.m.): Like my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that the Aboriginal Land Bill is one of division. I feel sorry for every Aboriginal in this place tonight and for every Aboriginal in Queensland because this is a slur on them. What this Government is doing to Aboriginal people is a total no-no. In its last few years the previous National Party Government put Aboriginal people in this State Legislative Assembly 8251 30 May 1991 on the map and gave them something to fight for, something to live for and something to be proud of. What happened in this place today and what will happen in this place tonight is, unfortunately, something of which this Government will be reminded and something of which it will never be proud. Members of the Government can mark my words that this legislation will come back and bite them. Mr Hobbs: They've been used as political tools by the Labor Government. Mr JOHNSON: My colleague the member for Warrego says that they have been used as a political tool. There is no doubt about that. We all know that. We have seen what happened outside Parliament House a couple of days ago and last week. It is unfortunate that the Aboriginal people became a little bit irate outside here last week, but I believe they were not a true representation of the Aboriginal people as I know them. I grew up in the west with black people. I went to school with them, I worked with them and I played football with them. Many of them are very good friends of mine. They are people I hold in very high respect, and I have very high regard for them. The Government has done the wrong thing here. As Marshall Perron said in the Northern Territory, "You have had consultation with white lawyers from Canberra who do not understand what Aboriginal people are about, who do not understand what land rights are about."What we are about in this country is democracy . We live in 1991. I do not agree with the atrocities that happened in 1788 when the first white man came to this country. What we have been trying to do in recent years is overcome the problems that have confronted the black people, but tonight we are returning to the Dark Ages again. Mr Beattie: What emotional nonsense! Mr JOHNSON: This is not emotional talk, it is the truth, and the member for Brisbane Central knows that. How many black people has he consulted? Does he understand them? Not at all. He would not have a damn clue. It is only a short while ago that this Government was proclaiming national parks within this State. I am in favour of national parks if they are proclaimed in the right areas and under the right title. But they are now going to be handed over to the Aboriginal people. The parks were put there to preserve a part of our heritage. All people, whether they be black, white, or brindle, are a part of the heritage of this country. We must all work shoulder to shoulder in trying to achieve the ultimate goal. We should take a leaf out of the book of Martin Luther King, John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy and look at what they tried to achieve in the United States. They did achieve things. They had black and white people working together. If the Government continues with its present attitude, it will create a division in this country for ever and a day. As I said a while ago, lack of consultation has been the down-fall of this Government. It does not understand the Aboriginal people, and it never had the correct consultation with them. A short time ago, my leader mentioned the problems that the white man brought to this country and passed on to the Aboriginal people in our society. I am not proud of that, and I am sure that the Government is not proud of it, either. I think that the issues that we should be discussing are not so much land rights—Aborigines had land rights under the National Party Government—but health, education and self-management by Aborigines in their own right. That is what they want. They want self-management in their own right. Bob Katter—probably one of the greatest Ministers in charge of Aboriginal affairs that this State has ever had— consulted with the Aborigines. He knew how they operated. Mr Elder: He's got the best building brick in Queensland. Mr JOHNSON: We will get to the building brick in a minute. I will address the achievements of the Honourable Bob Katter shortly. What that man did for black people in this State is without parallel. I will quote a few of those achievements, and the honourable member for Manly will be quiet after I have finished. I have a letter addressed to the Honourable the Premier of this State, Mr Goss, from a Jeff McLean, who is the Chairman Legislative Assembly 8252 30 May 1991 of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. The Government did not have the decency to consult with this man who is the chairman of the only elected body that Aboriginal people in this State have. It states— "We note that the government's list of organisations it has consulted with does not include the ACC even though we are the only statutory body set up under Queensland legislation to advise the government and our elected local government councils are the present land trustees of DOGIT communities. We make regular decisions regarding land use, infrastructure, housing and town planning." The Government did not have the manners to consult with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. That is what it thinks of the Aboriginal people. However, I would like to put on record—— Mr Hobbs: Where is the civil libertarian now? Mr JOHNSON: Civil libertarian? I can see one over there. We heard them this afternoon and I do not think we want to hear any more from them. I am sure that the Aboriginal people of this State do not want to hear any more from them, either. What were the achievements of the Aboriginal people in communities on Aboriginal reserves in Queensland under the former National Party Government? Those people wanted the same rights as any other Queenslander. That is what they got under a National Party Government. This Government is now endeavouring to take it away from them and to divide their own ranks. The Aboriginal people wanted the right to own their own land and their own homes, and that is exactly what they were given. Under this ALP Goss administration, all of the 7 million acres of the DOGIT land will be taken from those people and the owner of it will be the Queensland Government. If that is what the Government calls Aboriginal land rights, the Government can take me to the cleaners, because it is taking the Aboriginal people to the cleaners here tonight. Mr Elder: All you have to do is read the Bill. Mr JOHNSON: I have read the Bill. I wish to place on record a few of the achievements of the great Bob Katter, who undoubtedly will be recorded as a great former Minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs. When he gave those people self-management in 1984—— Mr D'Arcy interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The honourable member can yell all he likes; I will yell a bit louder. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Woodridge! Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, they cannot handle the truth, can they? They are going to cop a bit of it now. In 1982-83, before Aboriginal people were granted self-management, the community stores in Aboriginal and Islander communities ran at a $408,000 loss. In 1983-84, they ran at a $229,435 loss. After the National Party Government granted them self-management rights which allowed them to manage the stores themselves, those losses were reversed and in 1984-85 a profit of $816,990 was recorded. Those people had something to work for and something to live for. They ran the stores at a profit. In 1985-86, there was a $621,502 profit. In 1986-87, the profit was $924,000. It goes on and on. Mr Bredhauer: The stores are still run by the department. Mr JOHNSON: But the Aboriginals are running the operation themselves. That is what I am speaking about. As part of their ventures, they turned off cattle. In 1982-83, they turned off 965 head of cattle. In 1983-84, that rose to 5 835 head of cattle, an increase of 504 per cent. That occurred because the people were given something to work for and achieve for themselves. The list goes on and on. Prior to 1983, there were three businesses on the communities. At June 1989, that figure had grown to 52, an increase of 1 633 per cent. Credit for that must go to the National Party Government. Legislative Assembly 8253 30 May 1991

What does this Government intend to do? It will take things away from them. In 1983-84, there were 40 people, including two apprentices, who were employed in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island building program. In 1988-89, there were 288 Aboriginal people employed in that program, representing an increase of 620 per cent. I do not want to speak forever. I have made my point and I feel that members opposite have grasped it. I feel sorry for the Aboriginal people because they will be losing their deed of grant in trust land. If the Government had the intestinal fortitude to consult with somebody such as Bob Katter or even some of the Aboriginal council members who understood the real problems of Aboriginal people, it would not find itself in the quandary in which it finds itself tonight. If consultation had occurred, people would not have marched on Parliament House last week and again yesterday. Before I resume my seat, I want to point out that the real, fair-dinkum Aboriginal people in this State are earning a quid and fighting hammer and tong for what they have been given in the past and what they want to hang on to. They understand what white man has given to them over the past 200 years. They are happy with what they were given under the National Party Government, but this Government is taking it away from them. Aboriginals are people, too. The moment we forget that they are people, we are in real trouble. Mr Hobbs: There are only five speakers out of 55 over there. Do you think they are scared of them? Mr JOHNSON: They are scared, all right. We know how scared members opposite are. Last week, when the dark people were at the front of Parliament House—they are people just like you and I, they are nothing to be frightened of—you never had the guts to go down and talk to them. Where was your Premier? Mr Nunn interjected. Mr JOHNSON: He was locked up inside the building somewhere. He was terrified of them. Who went down to see those people at the front of Parliament House? It was Doug Slack, the Opposition spokesman, and Bob Katter. Who were the people who were arbitrating between those people and this Minister—Doug Slack and Bob Katter. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest that the honourable member direct his comments through the Chair? Can I suggest to the member for Isis that he cool it a bit? Mr JOHNSON: The whole problem is that members opposite do not like reality and they do not like the truth. They cannot face the real issues. Mr Gunn: They are wimps. Mr JOHNSON: They are a mob of wimps. Mr Veivers: There are 54 on that side of the House and only five of them wanted to talk on the Bill. Mr JOHNSON: Exactly. And who got up and did the talking? It was the civil libertarians. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will cease interjecting. Mr Elder: If it was so crash hot for you lot, why did the Opposition Leader speak sixteenth on the Bill? Mr JOHNSON: Because he has been very busy today, and he was not here. That is why he did not speak at the top of the list. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I point out to the member for Manly that that was not very becoming of him. Can we have some quiet, please? Legislative Assembly 8254 30 May 1991

Mr JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Livingstone: He is not going to be your leader for much longer, either. Mr JOHNSON: I have got news for the honourable member, and it is all bad. What about Bob Hawke? He is not travelling too well, either. The Labor Party will be having a yarn about him on Tuesday, will it not? There will be more than condolence motions. Mr Speaker, I do not want to aggravate the people on your side of the House any further. They know what the real—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! They are not on my side of the House. Mr JOHNSON: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. If members opposite had had the intestinal fortitude to go and speak to the Aboriginal people, we would not be in the dilemma that we are in tonight, or, I should say, the dilemma that we will be in after tonight. What the Government has done to the Aboriginal people in this State is a definite disservice. Mr Ardill: What is the disservice? Mr JOHNSON: The legislation will create further alienation of the Aboriginal people within this State. I think that, in 1991, that is a very sad state of affairs. The Government is doing the Aboriginal people a disservice. We on this side are trying to help Aboriginal people. Mr Ardill: What's the disservice? Mr JOHNSON: You have taken away their deed of grant in trust land . That is what you have done and that is what you are going to do. You are taking away what they have been given. We want to see what you people want to do. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will make his comments through the Chair. I warn him about that now. Mr JOHNSON: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but members opposite are trying to provoke me. But they will not provoke me on this matter, I can tell them that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is holding his own in dealing with the provocation. Mr JOHNSON: I wish to put on record the great work that Bob Katter and the former National Party Government did for the Aboriginal people. I also put on record the great work that the National Party Government will do again for the Aboriginal people when it is returned to power. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (9.45 p.m.): Opposition members have some concerns about this Bill. We believe that some of the proposals in it will create great divisiveness in Australia. It is interesting that the Premier has taken over the direction of the legislation. Several Opposition members have described the manner in which that has been done. It was absolutely essential for the Premier to expedite this delicate piece of legislation with the least possible amount of media coverage. Members saw very little about this legislation in the media. I believe that it was kept very quiet because the Government did not want it to cause any problems. Only when people became aware of it did demonstrations occur. The expectations of Aboriginal people were raised considerably by the promise of granting land rights, together with the anticipated granting of forestry, quarrying and mineral rights. However, that has not been realised in this legislation. I am sure that Aborigines are very concerned about that. Although I do not believe that they are entitled to those rights, those suggestions were mooted. Their expectations were raised because of that. The absorption of national park and tidal lands in accordance with the Governor in Council's declaration is not warranted, because those areas have been set aside for all Queenslanders to use for recreational activities. Legislative Assembly 8255 30 May 1991

Mr Ardill: And still will be. Mr ROWELL: They still will be, but why must Aboriginal people be favoured? Why is that necessary? Aboriginal people can use national parks and the tidal lands, just as anybody else can. Why must they be treated differently from other Queenslanders? Coastal lands also fall into that category. In her second-reading speech, the Minister referred to the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which stated— "The nexus between inadequate or insufficient land provision for Aboriginal people and behaviour which leads to a high rate of arrests and detention of Aboriginal people has been repeatedly and directly observed in the reports of the deaths which were investigated." The implication that land rights will serve as a panacea to behavioral problems would be difficult to justify. I see no difference between land rights and those words of the royal commission. How will land rights help those people? There is currently a substantial exodus of Aborigines from country areas to the cities. If there is a need for them to maintain identity with the spiritual and cultural aspects of their land, why is there a drift to the more populated areas of this State? I believe that this identifies one of the major problems that Aboriginal people face. Land rights in itself will not better the lot of most Aborigines. In fact, this legislation has disillusioned many of the activists, and has raised with many other Queenslanders the issue of racial prejudice. The demonstrations that have occurred within the grounds of the parliamentary precinct will galvanise opinion on both Aboriginal and white Queenslanders. I am firmly of the opinion that many Aborigines would be disgusted with the behaviour of those demonstrators. My constituents have rung my electorate office to vent their concerns about the damage that is being done to the property of the Parliament of this State. They are angry about the replacing of our flag by that vociferous and radical group of people who took the law into their own hands. The deed of grant in trust Aboriginal land has been recognised in a manner that has tied them to that land forever. When the National Party was in Government, it adopted a commendable and responsible attitude to Aborigines. It gave them something that they had never had before. Members will recall the years of Labor Government. They heard Bob Katter say that, when he took up his portfolio as the relevant Minister, Aborigines were disadvantaged. Under this legislation, Aborigines have less authority over their designated land than they had under the deeds of grant in trust. Mr Foley: That is not correct. Mr ROWELL: It is. It is absolutely correct. Mr Foley: How so? Mr ROWELL: Aboriginal councils used to govern that land. Now there will be trustees and a tribunal. Under this legislation, the Government will act as Big Brother and appoint the Land Tribunal and the trustees, thus reducing the authority that was vested with Aborigines under the previous legislation. There appear to be no problems with the granting of quarrying and forestry rights. Many members on this side of the House have agreed that that probably should have been done before. In 1967, during the time of Harold Holt's conservative Government, a referendum resulted in Aborigines having the right to vote in this great land of ours. That is of some significance. Until the introduction into Parliament of this legislation, public awareness of the land rights issue has been very low key. Only the minimum amount of time was allowed for this Bill to be circulated in the wider community. That practice is becoming a hallmark of this Government, which purports to be open and accountable, especially where sensitive issues are involved. I took this Bill to people in my electorate to peruse but, because it is being rammed through the House in the absolute minimum amount of time that a Bill is required to lay on the table of the House, they have not Legislative Assembly 8256 30 May 1991 had the opportunity to look at it or comment on it. That is disgraceful. Why could the Government not have left it for a couple of weeks, a month or two months? Is there something in the Bill that the Government wants to hide? There must have been some reason. Why did the Bill lay on the table of the House for only seven days? Why were the people in the wider community not given the opportunity to realise what is in the Bill? What was the Government's purpose in doing that? The Bill will do very little to address the major problems of Aborigines. It contains no clear definition as to what qualifies a person to be a bona fide Aborigine. The qualification set down in clause 2.02 is obscure. The clause states that an Aborigine is a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia. The terminology is very, very broad. Genuine Aborigines are concerned about what might be termed a dilution of their race. At what point are the traces of Aboriginal extraction obliterated by the infusion of other races? Many Queenslanders would feel comfortable with the recognition of the genuine Aborigines and their needs but are disturbed when they see those people of mixed race appearing to dominate the agenda. Census figures indicate that between 1981 and 1986 there was an increase of 37 per cent in the number of Aboriginal and Islander people in Queensland, 65 per cent of whom were in Brisbane. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those statistics have been given in the debate. I suggest that the member for Hinchinbrook does not get repetitive. Mr ROWELL: I will not go on with it. I just wanted to reiterate them. That clearly indicates that the Aborigines are becoming an urban race. Except for those Aborigines who can be described as genuine, there is some doubt as to the intention of those vociferous groups that pulled down the Queensland and Australian flags and replaced them with a symbolic token of division in the Australian society. The deed of grant in trust legislation went a long way towards recognising those lands over which Aborigines had specific rights. It allowed the people in those areas to have a high level of determination over their own destiny and, by and large, those people ran operations that allowed them to maintain a life-style to which they had been accustomed for centuries. Societies are changing continually and, in the past 200 years, the Aboriginal people have changed also. The Aboriginal Coordinating Council furnished me with a copy of a letter that it sent to the Premier raising its concern about the lack of consultation with a large number of recognised Aboriginal bodies in Queensland. The council raised the point of the political and moral danger of expediency and were at a loss to understand why the legislative review committee that was inquiring into legislation relating to the management of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities would have no input into the report, which is due in August. The council made the point of saying that, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Even the National Party would not act with such indecent haste. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr ROWELL: That is what the letter states, if the honourable member would like to read it. Could I table the letter? Mr SPEAKER: Yes. Mr ROWELL: I table the letter. The Aboriginal Coordinating Council, which represents 15 different communities throughout Queensland, wanted the Government to slow down the process until sufficient time for the ramifications of a variety of factors could be considered. The Aborigines, it would appear, have had little input into the legislation. Numerous matters should be addressed in the legislation in the best interests of Aborigines in this State. Those matters should pivot around allowing Aborigines determination of their own destiny. It would not be appropriate to condemn the past 200 years Australian history with recriminations. I have had a close association with many Aborigines in Ingham and have a great deal of respect for them. I have worked with them and I have had a good association with them in a number of sporting activities. They are a fine group of people. I have found them to be industrious and Legislative Assembly 8257 30 May 1991 concerned with the image that some of their race portray. Social problems such as drunkenness are a sad reflection on a very proud race of people. It is disturbing to see such drunkenness. The matters that require attention in the context of the legislation will determine the future of Aborigines. If they wish to enjoy the trappings of a European society, it is not unreasonable that they should contribute to the infrastructure in which they live. The previous legislation gave Aborigines the choice in the manner and style of life that they wished to maintain. However, I do not think that they can have their cake and eat it, too. Mr Hayward: What does that mean? Mr ROWELL: It means quite simply that they must contribute to society. They cannot simply go along to the dole office and pick up money. We want to integrate them into society. That can be done in very substantial ways. To do that, the Government must show leadership. It is possible. Currently, we are doing that through TAFE colleges in Ingham. A number of Aborigines attend those colleges. That is fine. That is the style of thing that we must do for the community. Mr Lester: There will not be too many more attending TAFE colleges with the fees going up. Mr ROWELL: No, not with the fees increasing as they are now. That is disturbing. Should Aborigines wish to live as their forefathers did, the opportunity is there for them to do just that, but they must make a decision.This legislation has been imposed on Aborigines with very little consultation as to how the communities within the designated areas will survive after the legislation is in place. Consideration should be given to assisting them in the future management of the land, if required. This is a very important factor. In the past there have been Aboriginal councils. I ask: what will happen to those councils. What will the infrastructure be? Will they continue? These are the sorts of questions that must be answered. What does the trust mean to them? Where will they fit in with the trust? There are no clear guidelines in the legislation as to what will happen. If assistance is needed in the determination of their life-style in order to make them feel self- sufficient, then various options should be discussed. We must find ways and means of helping these people to reach a point at which they will be self-sufficient. They must not be dependent on dole queues. That is denigrating and I do not think they want that. Those problems can be overcome by further education, an option that must be considered very seriously. Education and health are essential for the well-being of their descendants. I am aware of the existence of Aboriginal health programs that are concerned with a number of diseases and dietary deficiencies that plague Aborigines. This service is provided from Ingham to the surrounding districts. These health problems have been a problem in the past and this matter can and should be addressed. Regular clinics have been conducted in a number of areas and the people working in the health service in that region are doing a fine job. This legislation is not warranted. It has raised expectations and will only cause unrest amongst the wider community in Queensland. Mr Ardill: Why will it? Mr ROWELL: Because there is an expectation on the part of the Aborigines. They are not satisfied. The community at large does not really know what the legislation is all about. There has been little or no media coverage of it. The Government has told the people of Queensland very little about what this legislation means to them. This is disastrous. People are entitled to gain a knowledge of what legislation is all about. The indecent haste with which this legislation is going through the House typifies the Government's attitude to it. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (10.02 p.m.): I must report to this Parliament that the great majority of people in the electorate of Peak Downs are vehemently opposed to this legislation. It is their view that there should be one rule for all. There should Legislative Assembly 8258 30 May 1991 not be discrimination in Queensland, which is literally what is happening under this legislation. There is no risk that non-Aboriginal people will be discriminated against. Government members interjected. Mr LESTER: Members of the Labor Party can say what they like, but I am speaking from the heart. That is what my people think. The Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people will be totally discriminated against. I assure members that that is the way the people of Peak Downs feel. I will give the House the names of some Aborigines who are diametrically opposed to what this Parliament is doing tonight. One person who made a success of his life was the late Chooky James. Government members interjected. Mr LESTER: Members can make fun of him if they wish, but this person raised thousands and thousands of dollars for the ambulance services in the Emerald region. He raised some of this money by pushing a lawn-mower from Comet to Emerald on Good Friday. He subsequently qualified as an ambulance bearer. If anyone riding in the Comet rodeo fell off his or her horse, Chooky would be there. The medication he gave was better than any medication administered by a qualified person. In addition, Chooky James and his family were outstanding in the community. A little while before he died he was granted the prestigious award of citizen of the year in Emerald. That shows what Aboriginal people can do when left to their own devices. He did not need legislation or special deals to help him. He said, "If I am to make my way in the world, I will do what everyone else does." God rest his soul! The next person I wish to talk about is Aflas Mainhardt, who for many years has been a railway ganger in Clermont. During that time he has been in control of men and is probably one of the very best in the business. He raised a big family and one of his sons is Michael Mainhardt, who has represented Queensland in the Sheffield Shield competition. Government members interjected. Mr LESTER: He has done a good job and I am pleased that the ALP acknowledge that fact. That man has probably led a better life and done more towards raising his family than the average non- Aboriginal person in Clermont, myself included. In my early days as a baker in Duaringa I knew Clarry Lannamore, who was the nightman and did a brilliant job. In addition, there was Clancy Booth, who used to collect the bread at my bakery and deliver it to the Woorabinda Aboriginal settlement. He was a brilliant man who did a great job. He always acknowledged the good deal he got from the Duaringa bakery under the management and ownership of one Vincent Lester. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am curious as to what this has to do with the legislation. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would like to hear the member for Peak Downs. Mr LESTER: The point I am trying to make is that this legislation is not needed. There are many people of the Aboriginal race who, left to their own devices, can make it in the community very well—better than many white people. I am relating my comments to the Bill by giving specific examples. Unlike some Labor members who have given general examples, I have been very specific by providing names. I will take another tack which also relates to the Bill. Not long after I completed my apprenticeship I can remember starting as a baker in Duaringa. In those days, Woorabinda Aboriginal settlement was a great place to go to. The settlement is now very different from what it used to be in those days. There were some great Aboriginal people who worked very hard. They were being trained as mechanics; they had their own football teams; they used to run their own radio station in Duaringa; they used to grow their own vegetables; they used to look after their own cattle; and they also used Legislative Assembly 8259 30 May 1991 to run their own shops. On Saturday nights, I would often go out there and watch the supervised boxing matches that used to take place. I also used to enjoy watching the football matches. Those were the great days of Woorabinda, and it was a pleasure to be able to go there. However, something has gone wrong. I am not blaming Governments or any individuals, but I just know that something has gone wrong. People will say that Woorabinda is a great place, and I am not saying that that is untrue. The point I make is that, since alcohol and bar facilities were introduced, things have generally become much worse than they used to be. Gone are the days when Aboriginal people maintained the settlement to a high standard. Many of the settlement's residents now just sit around; they do not seem to have any sense of direction or purpose. I would like to see this legislation address those problems. Government members interjected. Mr LESTER: I challenge any member of the Government to go out to Woorabinda and see for himself. I am not telling fibs and I am not blaming anybody in particular, but the simple facts of life are that the people at Woorabinda do not seem to have any sense of destiny. Something that used to be a part of the community is no longer there, and that is a very worrying matter. I had hoped that the Minister would address these problems and put some heart and soul back into these settlements. People tell me that Woorabinda is probably the best of all the settlements, so I would hate to think of the state some of the others are in. In fact, I understand that they are very much worse than Woorabinda. Mr Davies: Why don't you ask Mr Perrett what he thinks of Woorabinda? Mr LESTER: I do not want to discuss what anybody else thinks. I am comparing the Woorabinda settlement as it was years ago with the way it is now. As I said, I am not blaming anybody. I am saying that something has gone wrong with the culture. The Minister should try to encourage these people to do a little bit more for themselves. If they were able to do that, I am sure that they and everybody else would be a lot happier. It was my intention in participating in this debate to put forward my views without taking all night to do it. I wanted to mention on the floor of this Parliament a few of the great Aborigines of this State. Having said that, Mr Speaker, I thank you for having listened so attentively. Even though most of the people who live in my electorate oppose it, I hope that some good will come from this Bill. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn) (10.12 p.m.): Because Premier Wayne Goss raised false expectations in Aboriginal communities and incited Aborigines to protest when they realised they had been hoodwinked, it is with a degree of regret that I commence my short contribution to this debate by condemning the demonstrators who were allowed to denigrate the Parliament of Queensland yesterday. Mr Speaker, I am sure you would agree that the Parliament of Queensland is the bulwark of democracy in this State. The demonstrators who were permitted to continue their seditious conduct within the parliamentary precinct and commit sacrilege by removing the Australian flag—— Mr Welford: "Seditious"! Ha, ha! Mr HARPER: Some members of the Labor Party might think that it is a joke to commit sacrilege. However, I can assure the honourable member that it is far from a joke to commit sacrilege by removing the Australian and Queensland ensigns from the mastheads and replacing them with flags purporting to represent the Aboriginal community. I query whether such conduct has the support of the genuine people in the wider Aboriginal community. The great majority of Australians respect what the Australian flag stands for. It is the traditional symbol of the Australian nation and should be respected. Mr Speaker, you and I know that millions of Australians, including some very fine Aborigines, have been proud to fight for the Australian way of life and to die for our way of life—for our country and for their country—under that ensign. Surely, it is the ultimate humiliation Legislative Assembly 8260 30 May 1991 of this Parliament that the ensign, or standard, of the Australian nation and the Queensland flag were lowered and trampled into the dust, and then replaced by the flag that is accepted as a symbol of the Australian Aborigine. This is a very serious issue. Yesterday, that group of demonstrators effectively took possession of the precincts of the Queensland Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been extremely tolerant. The member for Auburn's views on the flag are his personal views, and he is entitled to express them, but not during a debate on land rights. I ask the honourable member to come back to the debate on the Bill that is before the House. Mr HARPER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If you are tolerant for another minute or two, you will see that I am getting at the very basis, the very thrust of land rights. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will listen with anticipation. Mr HARPER: That mixed group of Aborigines and others was incited to come to these precincts to take possession of land, which is what they effectively did. Anyone knows that when a group of people, whether they be rebels, in an army, in a navy or whatever, take possession of something, they lower the flag—the standard—of the country which previously possessed it and they raise their own standard. Quite frankly, that is what the group of demonstrators did yesterday. They lowered the Australian ensign and replaced it with their own flag which has been accepted as representative of the Aboriginal people in this nation. That is land rights—land grab rights—in the true sense of the word. It does no credit to the Government of Wayne Goss or to the Premier himself that the events of yesterday and last week were allowed to bring shame on all Australians and to set back the just cause of the Aboriginal people of Australia. In claiming that those of us who sought to speak out against such sedition, against such sacrilege, were posturing and hiding behind the flag, the Premier is beyond contempt. The Australian flag may not have any significance for Wayne Goss, but for those millions of Australians, including genuine Aboriginal people who have served under it for 90 years, its desecration by a group of demonstrators is intolerable conduct which no true Australians should condone. Finally on that aspect—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope so. I have been more than tolerant. I do not see the relevance that your comments have to the Bill. I hope this is your final remark; otherwise I will ask you to stop on that theme. Mr HARPER: Finally on that aspect of land rights and the demonstration for land rights, I cite what the State President of the Returned Services League of Australia said about it. He stated— "Their action in replacing the Australian National Flag with the Aboriginal flag is an insult to the war veterans (which includes aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) who fought, and in many cases, died under our Australian Flag, to preserve the freedoms under which they were able to express their opinions." I turn now to the deed of grant in trust which previous speakers have outlined. With the greatest respect and with no intention of compromising you, Mr Speaker, I am pleased that you are in the chair. You would be one of the few members of the Labor Party in this House who understands the type of land tenure which the indigenous people of North America hold, because you will recall discussing that very fact with indigenous people both in the United States and in Canada. I can say without any chance of contradiction that the deed of grant in trust that was granted to Aboriginal people in Queensland surpasses that which is available and has been available to the Indian people of the United States and of Canada. Mr Welford interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stafford will cease interjecting. Mr HARPER: It provides security of ownership to the Aboriginal people. The Indians in the United States of America and the Indians in Canada told me and other Legislative Assembly 8261 30 May 1991 members of the Queensland parliamentary delegation that they have very similar tenure except that, when they want to transfer land from within their own race, they have to seek approval—in the case of the United States, from Washington. Queensland has every right to be proud of the deed of grant in trust land. If there is one area of criticism that I have, it is that the previous Government, and this Government, for that matter, in the past 18 months, owing to problems within the Department of Land Management that could be cured, have been tardy in subleasing areas within those deed of grant lands to Aboriginal people—the indigenous people—who have the ability and the desire to take up those lands and to do something for themselves. If there has been any failure, that is where the failure has existed and does exist. New legislation is not needed to remedy that. All that was needed was for the present Minister for Land Management or his predecessors to take action to make sure that just claims by those conscientious and capable people were met promptly. In that regard, it is interesting that one of my colleagues who was in the Chamber for a short time mentioned Woorabinda, which is in my electorate. That community includes people who are capable of running their own show and whose Aboriginal council supports private ownership through subleasing arrangements within that community. I must say that I do not agree with the remarks made by the member for Peak Downs about the Mimosa Club. The Aboriginal people at Woorabinda are handling with a reasonable degree of success problems that arise through alcohol. That community is certainly an example to which others can look. Admittedly, through funding that has been made available largely by the Commonwealth Government, Woorabinda has been able to develop, and is continuing to develop. For instance, water resources that were very difficult to provide and which cost a lot of money—a lot of Australian taxpayers' money—have now brought about a reasonable water supply. Housing is being developed, and the infrastructure that goes with it. I believe that, given the type of assistance that this Government and the Federal Government should continue to give, the Aboriginal people have no need for the type of legislation that honourable members are debating tonight. What they need is meaningful assistance to stand on their own feet and, as other members have said, to earn the credit, the right, to do their own thing and to succeed. They need assistance in that area; they do not need this type of legislation. Incidentally, years ago, those people had to put up with the frustrations of being moved from their traditional grounds around Taroom to the site of Woorabinda. I must say that, in the deed of grant in trust lands that they hold, they have some of the richest, some of the best, brigalow grazing country in Queensland—and, of course, in Australia. Given the opportunity and continued assistance from State Government departments such as the Department of Primary Industries and the Water Resources Commission, they should succeed, and they will succeed. Like so many other initiatives of Goss Labor, the legislation that honourable members are debating tonight is really only window-dressing. It is a shabby political stunt against—not for, but against—the Aboriginal people of Queensland. Is it any wonder that some of them succumbed to those who seek to lead them in demonstrations? It is unfortunate, but it is understandable. The member for Yeronga made much of inalienable freehold title, or a deed of grant in fee simple. Of course, one of the difficulties is that Aboriginal people and the great majority of members of the total community do not really understand that a deed of grant is simply a term for freehold title. The National Party Government gave that deed of grant in trust to protect the Aboriginal people, to make sure that the land could not be flogged off in 10 minutes by irresponsible members of the Aboriginal community. Again, I hear laughter from the Labor benches. If members of the Government think a little bit about it, they will appreciate—just as the United States and the Canadian Government did—that unless there is some provision to ensure that the land cannot be flogged off to the smart "whities", it will be. That is the reason for it being granted in trust, and that is how it should be, because those lands have been granted to the Aboriginal people for all time, and they should not have the ability to sell them to anyone other than members of their own race. That is the procedure in America, and that is the procedure that was followed in Queensland. They should be able to sublease Legislative Assembly 8262 30 May 1991 the lands within their own race, and they should be able to hand them down from mother to daughter and from father to son or to sell them within their own race, but they should not, and must never be allowed to, simply dispose of them for a quick quid. Why meddle with the title? Why engage in window- dressing? Why go out on a public relations exercise to suggest that the Goss Labor Government is giving Aboriginal people something that it is not? That is what this Government is all about. If it is genuine inalienable freehold title, there cannot be room for the Government—whether it be a Goss Government, another Labor Government or a conservative Government—to take it back, for it to be repossessed, even then to be returned to some other Aboriginal group. I make that point because I am sure that the member for Yeronga has heard those words used. It is time that this one-ring circus, this flea market of ideas—this Goss Labor Government—did something meaningful for our Aboriginal communities instead of posturing. As I said, it is time that this Government and Wayne Goss got out and helped Aboriginal people to develop their natural pride in achievement. They do have a natural pride in achievement, and Wayne Goss Labor should be getting out and encouraging them to become an integral part of the total community. That is the message that members of this Parliament should be delivering tonight. Aboriginal people should be assisted in developing their lands, which they already hold under freehold title in fee simple. The Government should not engage in window-dressing. For once in its term of Government, let the Goss Labor Party be genuine in its endeavours to help these Australians develop opportunities for themselves. They deserve it; they are entitled to it; and, if it is given to them, they will succeed. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (10.29 p.m.): The hour is late, so I will not take up too much of the time of the House. However, I do want to put on record that this Bill demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Goss Labor Government. It has shown a total lack of faith in the Aboriginal people. I do not condone what happened outside Parliament House yesterday. I spoke to one of the Aboriginal elders from the Cherbourg community, who also does not condone what happened outside this place yesterday, but he said, "I can understand it because these people are frustrated." They have been told that they would be given plenty, and they have been given nothing. This Bill is all about demonstrating the hypocrisy of this Government. The Aboriginal people are a very proud race. They are proud of their culture and of their achievements. There are many people within the community of Cherbourg in my electorate who are responsible citizens. I refer to people who have been named by my colleague the Honourable Bob Katter. I mention Les Stewart, Allan Douglas, Angus Rabbit and others who are responsible citizens. The Aboriginal people have some wonderful talents. We often cheer at their sporting achievements. They have wonderful artistic talents. I would like to place on record the achievements of a young artist extraordinaire, Stephen Bond, who has sold paintings which are now hanging in the Qantas VIP lounge at Sydney airport. I was very happy to nominate Stephen last year for the Channel 9 Young Achievers Award and was very pleased when he was highly commended. Stephen is an artist extraordinaire because he is also a bull-rider. He has been given a chance, and that is what Aboriginal people need. He had an alcohol problem which through his achievements with the paint brush, he has been able to combat. It has given him confidence. That is what the Government, the Opposition, and the Parliament in the State of Queensland should be doing, giving these people a chance by boosting their confidence. Many people in the community look down their nose because they say the Aborigines cannot handle their alcohol. If alcohol is placed in front of anybody with a lot of spare time and nothing to do a problem will result. In the short time that I intend to speak here tonight, I would like to pay a tribute to Aboriginal women. I have so often seen Aboriginal women as the cornerstone within the family and the society. They are the ones who have quite often been left to raise very large families under very adverse circumstances. They have done it admirably. At the moment, I can think of no fewer than three or four women who play a very active part in the Cherbourg community. Legislative Assembly 8263 30 May 1991

People go to them for help when they have problems. Councillor Ada Simpson of the Cherbourg Community Council is one person who really stands out in that regard. I am very proud of the people at Cherbourg. I have had quite a long association with them. I can remember that when I was probably about two years old an Aboriginal couple worked on our property. The Aboriginal lady used to bounce me up and down on her knee. All I can remember is that her name was Lucy. Her skin was very black but her heart was as pure as snow. I have also had a lot to do with the community at Cherbourg since I have become the member for Barambah. I was instrumental in convincing this Government to give them the first emu farm in Queensland. The first thing the Aboriginal people want to show anyone visiting Cherbourg today is their emu farm, because they are proud of it. Recently, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I was very fortunate to be able to visit most of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. The point was made very vividly to me that they are proud of their achievements. Wherever we went after we talked to the councillors, the leaders of the community, they would always want to show you the things in their community that they were proud of. My colleague, Mr Harper tonight mentioned the Woorabinda settlement. I believe that of the communities that we saw it was one of the really shining lights. The people there also demonstrated that they do have an ability to manage land, because their land is a real jewel in the crown of Aboriginal achievements in this State. The land is well managed and the operation is run at a profit. I was very dismayed recently to see that when the Woorabinda community outlaid some money on racehorses that they came in for a lot of scorn from the community in general. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I must ask the member for Barambah to come back to the Bill. I have been extremely patient. He has been speaking for five minutes and has not mentioned the Bill at all. Mr PERRETT: I differ with you there, Mr Speaker. What I am trying to point out is the hypocrisy of this Government in what will be brought about as a result of this Bill, because what we are trying to do is build the confidence of the people. If we double-cross them all the time, how can we build their confidence? Mr Speaker, I could go on and on and say lots of things about the people, but obviously time is getting on, and you are getting frustrated. I think I have made my point. I certainly cannot support the Bill in this form, and I will rest my case. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not becoming frustrated. Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (10.37 p.m.), in reply: I commend my Government colleagues for the informed, compassionate and positive contributions they have made to the debate on land rights thus far. I cannot, unfortunately, extend the same commendation to most of the members on the opposite side. I make something of an exception in the case of the member for Callide, who expressed a clear and genuine support for Aboriginal land rights. She is, however, grossly misled as to the provisions of this Bill and its intent. A scaremongering campaign of disinformation in respect of some of the important features of the Aboriginal land rights program, of which this Bill is part, featured throughout the speeches from the other side of the House, and so, too, did their reinterpretation of the meaning of the Aboriginal protests about the formulation of this Bill. I turn now to examine the ostensible Aboriginal opposition to this Bill, asserted so confidently by the Opposition, and treacherously exploited to confound the real issues. In South Australia, the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Bill was introduced in 1981 and was the subject of heated debate. This Bill was a negotiated settlement. The Pitjantjatjara council entered into negotiations, but it was supported by the massed presence of Pitjantjatjara people camping at the Adelaide showgrounds. In 1983 in New South Wales, large-scale agitated demonstrations occurred at Parliament House, with Aboriginal demonstrators climbing the fences of the New South Wales Parliament. Their objections to the Aboriginal Land Rights Bill were focused on the gap between the provisions of that Bill and the recommendations of the Keane report on which the Bill was based. Legislative Assembly 8264 30 May 1991

Recently, when amendments to the New South Wales Land Rights Act were tabled in that State's Parliament, Aboriginal demonstrators pulled down the gates of that House. Aboriginal responses to Victorian Aboriginal land rights, as introduced by the Commonwealth, and the three-page Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Rights Act were also the subject of much acrimonious debate. In Victoria, the Aboriginal community remains split on issues, some of which have been raised in recent weeks by Queensland Aborigines in the debate on this Bill. During the last two decades, acrimony, personal vilification, street demonstrations and emotional debates have been consistent features of the introduction of Aboriginal reforms throughout Australia. Is it any wonder that, after 200 years of exploitation, exclusion and oppression, Aboriginal people would feel that whatever reforms are possible within this context are not enough? I have sympathy for their cause and I commend their right to demonstrate that cause in Queensland. However, I resile from the violence that occurred yesterday in the grounds of this House. Nevertheless, the right to peaceful demonstration is a cornerstone of this Government and will remain so in spite of the provocation from either the groups outside or the Opposition parties inside this House. I am therefore not deterred from this endeavour to introduce Aboriginal land rights and to shift the power relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Queensland. Most people find change difficult to accept, and powerless people in particular have always been suspicious of reforms on their behalf. The outcome of this historic Bill will become apparent only in its implementation. I look forward to the real changes which my department and I, using the powers of this legislation, will be able to bring about in Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. It is wrong to say that there was no consultation or to see the consultation process as a finite and limited exercise. There has been considerable discussion with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. It is important to remember that this legislation is not a contrivance of the Government or that consultation commenced only in recent months. Since my appointment as Minister, I have been consulting constantly with Aboriginal people about their aspirations for land and those issues that this legislation addresses. My department and I have received numerous approaches, proposals and submissions in relation to matters contained in this Bill. In February this year, the Premier alerted Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander people generally to the need to prepare their proposals for land rights legislation. Consequently, when members of the working party met with Aboriginal groups and ATSIC regional councils to discuss the Government proposals, it was very clear that considerable thought had been devoted to the issue. This was also reflected in the quality of submissions that were put to the Government. I might add that we are not starting out completely afresh and anew. For 20 to 30 years, there has been considerable scholarship, information and debate about the whole matter of land rights in Australia. Indeed, as the honourable member for Yeronga mentioned earlier in the debate, that process has been ongoing for the last century. The question of land rights is not new. The subject matter that we are debating is not new. It is not reasonable to expect that every part of the whole package could be consulted in only a short period. As I said, that consultation process has been and is ongoing. The Government asked the ATSIC regional councils to coordinate the consultation process on the basis that ATSIC is the only Statewide consultative body that covers the interests of all Aboriginal people in Queensland. I attended as many of those meetings as possible. Resources were also provided to each of those councils to enable them to develop their submissions. The honourable member for Yeronga sought clarification on the consultation with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. The views of the ACC have been fully considered. They have been provided to the Government in two separate submissions presented to me over the last 18 months. The first of these was provided in May 1990. Later that year, the ACC was asked to provide specific advice in relation to land rights legislation. The ACC's detailed submission was presented in April 1991. I am pleased to be able to say that the vast majority of the ACC's proposals are reflected in the legislation or are capable of being accommodated during the process of Legislative Assembly 8265 30 May 1991 implementation. Of the 28 elements of the proposal, only five are outside the scope of this Bill. In addition, during the formal consultation process I met with the ACC to discuss the specific proposal. I rang members of the ACC and asked them when I could meet with them. They told me a time and a place. At that stage, they wished to have that meeting together with the Federation of Land Councils. I agreed to that, and that is where I met them. I have here a document which outlines the details of the consultation proposal in which members of the working party and I participated. I seek leave to table this document and have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER: The normal procedure is that the Chair should see the document. I will have a look at it and make a ruling on its incorporation. The honourable member is allowed to table the document. Ms WARNER: I wish to respond to those particularly racist remarks of the member for Burnett, from which I trust all members of this House will dissociate themselves. The member for Burnett referred to the alleged cultural traits of Aboriginal people. He looked surprised and startled. I wish that Mr Slack would understand what he is saying when he says it. He asserted that the cultural traits of Aboriginal people prevent them from conducting their lives adequately and from planning for the future. He asserted that they were unable to compete in the twentieth century. Every cultural group, whether Aboriginal, European or of the recent British culture in Australia, is an expression of the humanity of the members of those groups, and all human cultures have contributed to the world in which we live. Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. I did not say "all Aboriginal people", I said "many Aboriginal people". Ms WARNER: The honourable member even discriminates amongst Aboriginal people. All human cultures have contributed to the world in which we live. The member for Burnett denies that Aboriginal culture is a worthwhile way of life, that it has contributed to the general Australian way of life and that it deserves to survive and be maintained by Aboriginal people. Moreover, the honourable member goes further to deny that an Aboriginal culture exists. He referred to a cultural void, as if Aboriginal people are merely poor whites. The member for Burnett is wrong. Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is either deliberately or completely misrepresenting what I said. She is interpreting what I said completely out of context. Ms WARNER: I advise the honourable member for Burnett to be more careful in what he says. As I said, the member is wrong. His conception of Aboriginal people and their culture is wrong, and his conception of humanity is wrong. His conception is fundamentally racist. The member for Burnett then invokes the eugenicist tactics of the fascists—genealogical purity—— Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw that comment. I find it offensive. Ms WARNER: I withdraw. As I was saying, the member then invokes the genealogical purity of the fascists—carried for decades to absurd lengths by those on the other side of the House and their predecessors, as can be demonstrated by the kilometres of personal files on Aboriginal people that are placed in the State Archives by my department. Are Aboriginal people cattle to have their ancestry calculated like animal pedigrees by the member for Burnett and those like him by the use of words such as "one-eighth blood"? Is a mother to reject her husband and children because the member for Burnett thinks of such children as animals? The claim to be Aboriginal is based on ancestry and culture. We do not ask English, Italians, Greeks or any other ethnic groups to prove Legislative Assembly 8266 30 May 1991 their biological background before we allow them to claim to be members of their culture, because that is irrelevant and racist. The definition of "Aborigine", which means "a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia", is a widely accepted and commonly used definition in Australian law. The definition can be interpreted on the basis of opinions and findings of the High Court and other appeal courts. An Aboriginal person can legitimately claim to be Aboriginal if he or she is of some Aboriginal ancestry. An admixture of other ancestry does not invalidate this. Self-identification may be relevant in some circumstances. I refer the member for Burnett to the various court decisions that assist us to understand that determining who, for legal purposes, is an Aboriginal person is not a simple matter. It can involve not only questions of genetics but also a question of culture and identity. The member for Burnett and others like him should acquaint themselves with the notions of humanity of the late twentieth century and move on from the last century. The history of Queensland and, in particular, the history of Aboriginal people, is not just an oral one. It is documented. Historians continue to bring to our attention the facts of that bloody and brutal history. There are those who are still alive today—and I refer to non-Aboriginal Queenslanders—who, if they do not feel guilt for what they have done to Aboriginal people, must reconcile that with their God or themselves. But guilt is not the point of the reform program of this Government in relation to Aboriginal people. Social justice and equity underpin our endeavours to introduce land rights to Queensland. We cannot undo the wrongs of the past, but we can and will restore some of that which has been taken away from Aboriginal people—their land, the inspiration for their culture, and their dignity. The anecdote provided by the member for Burnett about a taxi-driver in New York—incidentally, a black American—is a very colourful herring, but a very revealing one. One New York taxi-driver—a descendant of slaves shipped from Africa to New America—said that he does not want to go to Ghana. What relevance does that have? The honourable member for Burnett raised the issue of timber and quarry rights. In a churlish way, he indicated that the National Party had intended to introduce a number of the provisions contained in this legislation. I should like to comment on some of them. The suggestion that timber and quarry rights would have been conferred needs to be set in context. This commitment was given only as a cynical ploy to engage Aboriginal people at Yarrabah as opponents to World Heritage listing. It was a desperate and ill-conceived act that was never acted upon. The suggestion that Aboriginal reserves would have been handed over to Aboriginal people has no foundation in fact. I am advised by officers of my department that the departmental files show that the former Government was making moves to degazette some of those lands. I would also like to comment on the ignorance of the honourable member in relation to Aboriginal relationships with land. Perhaps the honourable member has misunderstood the importance of the legislation. This legislation aims to recognise and not to suppress the nature of those relationships. Aboriginal owners of land are not elected. They inherit and earn those custodial responsibilities. Consequently, it is not possible to elect the trustees for land every three years. Aboriginal people who are responsible for the land have that duty all their lives. The National Party's solution resulted in the continuing dispossession of Aboriginal owners. Aboriginal councils are elected to fulfil local government functions, not necessarily to hold title to land. In spite of what the honourable member may wish to believe, and which he seeks to corroborate by referring to anonymous Aboriginal informants, Aboriginal people do retain knowledge of their country and hold custodial responsibilities for it. It suits the purposes of the honourable member to pretend that no such tradition is alive today in Queensland. I assure the member that he is profoundly ignorant and blatantly wrong. The honourable member for Burnett asked questions about the Preamble to the Aboriginal Land Bill, and, in particular, paragraph 8. As the honourable member appears to recognise, the Preamble does not create or change the law. Let me explain why the Preamble is included. The Preamble can throw light on the statutory purpose and object, Legislative Assembly 8267 30 May 1991 and could be consulted for the purposes of solving an ambiguity or fixing the connotation of a word that may have more than one meaning, or determining the scope or limiting the effect of the Act. However, the Preamble cannot create the law; nor can it restrict or extend the legislative words when the language is plain and not open to doubt. The two main propositions in paragraph 8 must be beyond doubt. Firstly, the law in this country has not adequately or appropriately recognised Aboriginal interests in and responsibilities for land. As Mr Justice Deane of the High Court said in a judgment in 1985— "The almost two centuries that have elapsed since white settlement have seen the extinction of some Aboriginal clans and the dispersal, with consequent loss of identity and tradition, of others. Particularly, where the clan has survived as a unit living on ancestral lands, however, the relationship between the Aboriginal peoples and their land remains unobliterated. Yet, almost two centuries on, the generally accepted view remains that the common law is ignorant of any communal native title or other legal claim of the Aboriginal clans or peoples, even to ancestral tribal lands on which they still live." I turn now to the honourable member for Landsborough, whose speech does not merit very much comment. It is difficult to identify any issues of substance upon which to respond. I appreciate the honourable member's point that she requires special tutoring. That is abundantly apparent to the House. The honourable member's confusion is best illustrated by her points on mining. Firstly, she criticised the Bill for denying Aboriginal people the right to negotiate on mining. For the record, I point out that that is not true. Clearly, the right to consent involves the right to agree upon the terms of consent. Secondly, she says that if the legislation were to allow for negotiations—which it does—then she would not support it. The honourable member cannot have her cake and eat it, too. The member for Gympie and the member for Warrego added very little to the debate except misinformation. Once again, the member for Flinders turned back the clock. The member for Brisbane Central adequately addressed his references to the 1950s. However, I take issue with the contention of the member for Flinders that it will not be possible to locate traditional owners. I agree with the member for Flinders that Aboriginal people were dispossessed of their land and removed to reserves throughout the State. However, it is simply ludicrous to conclude that Aboriginal people do not know the lands from which they were removed. They know the location of their traditional lands and have told their children and their children's children about their land. Most Aboriginal people with whom I have spoken are only too aware of their traditional country. I must comment also on the flagrant misrepresentation by the honourable member for Flinders about the provisions of the Bill relating to the issue of inalienable freehold title over DOGIT land and the appointment of trustees for the land. I can assure the House and, most importantly, Aboriginal people that the Bill does not take DOGIT land away and vest it in the Crown. The reverse of that is the case. The Bill allows the trustees who are valid owners of DOGIT land to hold inalienable perpetual title to that land. The new title will be issued in place of the deed of grant in trust, once the appropriate trustees have been determined, and at no time will the land revert to the Crown. The Minister will not be able to simply appoint anyone he or she chooses. Rather, the legislation requires that, in appointing trustees to the transferable land, the Minister must act as far as possible in accordance with Aboriginal tradition following consultation with Aboriginal people. Notably, it is then possible for groups of Aboriginal people to claim that land in accordance with principles of Aboriginal land-ownership. These are essentially issues of customary law. They are not matters that can be resolved at the polls every three years. The appropriate analogy to the National Party proposal is that the Brisbane City Council should hold all land in the Brisbane metropolitan area in trust for all the people of Brisbane. Clearly, that is a ridiculous proposition. However, that is the proposition that we are being asked to accept from members opposite. The Opposition has emphasised the merits of the deed of grant in trust scheme, which was brought in by the previous Government. Some Opposition members, to their Legislative Assembly 8268 30 May 1991 credit, have said that there are deficiencies in that scheme and that changes should be made. What they have not identified are what changes they support. But the fundamental weakness of the deed of grant in trust scheme was exposed by the member for Flinders. He informed the House that the councils that are the trustees of the land were meant to parcel out the land to private ownership. The fact is that they did not always do that. But if they had done what the member for Flinders wanted, there would be little, if any, DOGIT land today. The parcelling-out process has been carried out under the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act by which plots of DOGIT land are surrendered to the Crown and leases are granted over it. Under that process, DOGIT land is progressively becoming Crown land. Once a lease expires, it reverts to the Crown and not to the community. That is a loophole in the land-holding Act that would have alienated vast tracts of DOGIT land, had the process that the member for Flinders wanted proceeded. The Bill before the House will remedy the situation by ensuring that DOGIT land and Crown land over which leases have been granted will all become Aboriginal land held in inalienable freehold title by the appropriate Aboriginal trustees. The 15-year sunset clause, as it has been called, intends to set a final deadline for the lodging of claims. Claims properly lodged will continue to be heard. The provision relating to 15 years for the lodging of claims is comparable to the provision in the Commonwealth Land Rights Act, which applies in the Northern Territory. Twenty years has been allowed there, but the hearing of claims by the Aboriginal land commissioners is notoriously slow. Our tribunal will provide a much speedier and less laborious process to enable us to deal with those claims more speedily. The legislation unquestionably is a major and significant step forward for Aboriginal people. It is only a step. It is not presented to this House or to Aboriginal people as a panacea for all of the problems that they face. Rather, the legislation will provide a foundation upon which Aboriginal people can build a future for themselves and their children. Some members opposite seemed to be rather schizophrenic. Some were saying that the legislation did not go far enough, whilst others were saying, "We know that it does go quite far and we object to that." However, the Opposition is obviously locked into a position of opposition rather than a position of rationality. I have said before and I repeat in the House: this legislation is not the last word in land rights. It cannot be. It has to go through many more processes and, in cooperation with Aboriginal people, there may very well be reforms in the future. There may very well be changes. The deed of grant in trust legislation, I seem to recall, was amended about a year after it was introduced. Legislation that is passed through this House is not the end of the story. That is not the end of the day. Things move. We are part of a democracy. We are a Government that will continue to be committed to maintaining and improving our legislation. May I remind the House of the tangible benefits in the Bill. The Bill cleans up the mess left by the National Party with its so-called DOGIT legislation. It confers inalienable freehold title to those lands. This is the high-water mark of secure title for Aboriginal land that has been established in other States. It includes within the title to the former DOGIT-type lands all of the excisions made for public purposes by the National Party, a matter about which Aboriginal people have been agitated for some time. It removes the scope of any future Government to requisition land for future public purposes by administrative action. The Bill provides inalienable freehold title to the Aboriginal reserves, which could have been degazetted at any time by a capricious Government and which do not currently give Aboriginal people any secure title. It provides inalienable freehold title to the Aurukun and Mornington Island Shire lease areas. Those leases have 37 years left to run and will be revoked and replaced by inalienable freehold titles. The Bill allows claims to be made to vacant Crown land. That will mean, potentially, that Aboriginal people will gain title to a further 2 million hectares in different parts of the State. The Bill allows Aboriginal people to claim national parks on the basis of traditional affiliation or historical association. Those will be subject to automatic lease-back provisions to ensure that the status of the land as national park is preserved. Therefore, a further 3.8 million hectares, the present national park area, will become Legislative Assembly 8269 30 May 1991 claimable. While the conservation values of national park land will remain paramount, Aboriginal people who successfully claim national park land will have their representatives on the board of management and will develop with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service the plan of management in order to secure their own land-use interest in those plans. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bill will give virtually all Aboriginal people in Queensland the potential to claim land. Aboriginal people may claim land on the basis of traditional affiliation, historical association or enhancement of cultural and economic viability or some combination of these grounds. No other jurisdiction in Australia offers these three comprehensive bases for claim. Land claims will not be examined by faceless bureaucrats. Rather, they will be considered by an independent tribunal whose members have the knowledge and expertise to reach decisions based on a proper balance of interests. The process will be open to public scrutiny and subject to judicial review. The Bill will confer timber and quarry rights upon the former DOGIT lands, the former shire areas of Aurukun and Mornington Island and former Aboriginal reserves. The Bill will extend the existing statutory provisions to allow Aboriginal people to control mining on those lands claimed on the basis of traditional ownership or historical association. This allows Aboriginal people to give or withhold consent to mining on their land. Only the Governor in Council can override Aboriginal decisions in this regard, and obviously this power would be judiciously and cautiously used, and only in the public interest, if the public interest can be demonstrated. The Bill introduces provisions that will ensure that Aboriginal people can benefit from mining on their lands. The Bill creates the ability for the Crown to pay a proportion of mining royalties to Aboriginal people affected by mining and for the benefit of all Aboriginal people in Queensland. The Bill expands the capacity of Aboriginal people to manage their lands in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and to benefit from economic opportunities that may flow from ownership of land, provided that all relevant Aboriginal people consent on an informed basis. There are few limitations on the powers of Aboriginal title-holders to manage their land. The essential limitation is that the land cannot be sold or mortgaged. The Bill prevents the Crown from taking away land granted to Aboriginal people except by special Act of Parliament. If this were to happen, compensation for land resumed would have to be paid. It should be noted that, without the need for special legislation, the Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs has the power to acquire land for the benefit of Aboriginal and Islander people. This Bill achieves a single and principal legislative means for extending the area of land for Aboriginal people and providing Aboriginal people themselves with the power to manage that land. I will be able to respond to the many Aboriginal people who have made requests for areas of land by giving them advice on how they can now proceed according to the steps set out in this Bill to have their land interests recognised. In the coming years, more and more Aboriginal groups will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. It is in the implementation of these provisions that the worth of this Bill will be demonstrated. In conclusion, it is with considerable pride that I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wish to rule on the incorporation of the table of consultations. The document meets my guidelines and I rule that it be incorporated in Hansard. CONSULTATION PROGRAM WITH ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER ORGANISATIONS Meetings were held with— Meeting Time Spent Government Representative Cape York Land 12 hours Hon. A. Warner Council R. Rolfe N. Pearson Torres Strait ATSIC 3 hours R. Rolfe Regional Council (which includes the Island Co-ordinating Council) Legislative Assembly 8270 30 May 1991

Palm Island/Yarrabah 5 hours Hon. A. Warner ATSIC Regional R. Rolfe Council N. Pearson M. Langton Rockhampton ATSIC 4 1/2 hours R. Rolfe Regional Council M. Langton Wadja Wadja/ 1 1/2 hours R. Rolfe Wakka Wakka M. Langton ATSIC Regional Councils Brisbane ATSIC 5 hours Hon. A. Warner Regional Council T. Grau (Indigenous Council R. Hurley of Deputies) M. Langton Townsville ATSIC 4 hours T. Grau Regional Council R. Hurley M. Langton Cairns ATSIC 4 hours T. Grau Regional Council R. Hurley M. Langton South West 4 hours R. Hurley Queensland ATSIC M. Langton Regional Council Mt Isa and Gulf 5 hours R. Hurley ATSIC Regional T. Grau Council Aboriginal 2 hours Hon. A. Warner Co-ordinating M. Langton Council and Federation of Land Councils Peninsula ATSIC 4 hours N. Pearson Regional Council In addition the Torres Strait ATSIC Regional Council met on a second occasion for a 1 day sitting and produced a detailed submission. The Department funded the attendance of the Chairman of the peak organisation representing Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (Megani Malu Kes). Submissions were received from the following organisations and groups: Mt Isa and Gulf Regional Councils Cairns ATSIC Regional Council Queensland Aboriginal Federation of Land councils Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association Ltd. Cape York Land council Island Co-ordinating Council and Torres Strait ATSIC Regional Council Keppel Island People Yarrabah/Palm Island ATSIC Regional Council Brisbane ATSIC Regional Council (Indigenous Council of Deputies) Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council Cherbourg Lands Council Gurang Lands Council Wuthathi Aboriginal Corporation Muralug Tribal Torres Strait Islander Corporation Torres United Party Ang Gnarra Aboriginal Corporation Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— Legislative Assembly 8271 30 May 1991

AYES, 45 NOES, 31 Resolved in the affirmative. Committee Hon. A. M. Warner (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) in charge of the Bill. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before calling the clauses, I advise that, on page 42, a clerical error appears. The word "Chairpersons" should be "Chairperson". Clauses 1.01 to 2.05, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.06— Mr SLACK (11.12 p.m.): Earlier, I referred to Aboriginal reserve land, and so did the member for Tablelands. We referred to that land in the vein of its becoming inalienable freehold and in the context of reserved lands that are adjacent to towns coming within the ambit of the shire council's or town council's control. I ask the Minister: what will be the position in relation to rates? Are rates payable on that land? What will be the position in relation to the approval of building permits, etc.? For the information of the Committee, could the Minister outline the position in relation to local authority rates and controls? What will the situation be in relation to trustees and borrowing money, etc.? Ms WARNER: I am not entirely sure that the question of rates is necessarily relevant to this clause. However, I can inform the member that there is nothing in the Bill that either exempts or creates a situation in which Aboriginal land will be rateable. There is a fundamental difficulty in imposing rates on land that is the subject of inalienable title because there is no capacity for the council to resume the land if rates are not paid. I expect that the way to proceed will be on a case-by-case basis. Clause 2.06, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2.07 to 2.11, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.12— Mr SLACK (11.14 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 10, omit lines 22 to 24." The reason for the amendment to delete this clause is the inclusion of national parkland in the present wording. The Opposition objects to the inclusion of national Legislative Assembly 8272 30 May 1991 parkland being made into a title for claimable land. As members of the Opposition have stated quite clearly in various speeches, we do not believe that one group should be set apart. Members of the National Party believe that national parks belong to all people. Our belief is that the Minister's proposal is tokenism because it involves the transfer of national park and then the immediate reversion of title to the Government at the rent of one peppercorn. Of course, this will depend on the tribunal and the gazetting of the national park. The Opposition deplores this measure as a reasonable method of granting land rights to Aboriginal people because the Minister has indicated that the Government could go further than that. The National Party's policy is quite clear. We do not support national parks being converted to Aboriginal land. Ms WARNER: There is no need for a response to that comment. I am a little concerned that the honourable member raised the issue in the wrong part of the legislation. However, the Government is committed to making sure that the Aboriginality of national parks, if that is the point the member wished to raise specifically, is maintained through the purposes of this Bill and that national parks will become claimable Aboriginal land. Mr SLACK: I have another point to raise on this clause. Obviously, it includes the 1.16 per cent of vacant Crown land that is claimable. At the second-reading stage, I asked the Minister whether that 1.16 per cent of vacant Crown land was the only claimable land and she indicated that it was not. Fear has been expressed to me that, if a lease of pastoral land, or any other land that is held under any type of lease, expires within the 15-year period, it could be declared, through a process that the Government could activate, vacant Crown land and be gazetted for claim by Aboriginal groups. That is another reason why the Opposition has sought to have this clause removed. It would remove the possibility of that happening. Ms WARNER: At any given point in time or in history, it is virtually impossible to say, "This is vacant Crown land and everything else is not." From time to time, land tenures do change. However, I will say that claims will only be available on vacant Crown land. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 44 NOES, 31 Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 2.12, as read, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 8273 30 May 1991

Clause 2.13— Mr HOBBS (11.23 p.m.): I would like an interpretation from the Minister on this clause, which provides that available Crown land is land in which no person other than the Crown has an interest and sets out the tenure and the type of land that is available for claim. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I do not think that the Minister can hear. Mr Casey interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! If members wish to interject, including Ministers, they should do so from their correct seat. Mr HOBBS: Subclause (h) provides— ". . . land that has become Crown land if a person has a right, other than under this Act, against the Crown to the grant of an interest in that land . . ." As I understand the subclause, it excludes mining leases or mining rights. If an individual has a mining right on a block of land, will that person be excluded? Ms WARNER: I refer the honourable member to subclause (2), which is headed "In this section—", and which states— " 'interest' means a legal or equitable interest in the land, but does not include a mining interest." Mr HOBBS: I realise what is stated there. I did say that subclause (1) (g) deals with land subject to a special mining Act, but I am talking about an individual. Subclause (1) (h) states— "land that has become Crown land if a person has a right, . . . " That person should have a right as well, whether it be to have a lease handed down, whether that lease be for the use of running stock, a home or whatever the case may be. I ask: if somebody, through some method, has a right to mine on that land, will he be able to do so? Ms WARNER: I simply repeat that having a mining interest does not exclude the right of a claim. Mr GILMORE: I seek an explanation in regard to subclause (1) (h), which states— "land that has become Crown land if a person has a right, other than under this Act, against the Crown to the grant of an interest in that land." Subclause (1) (i) states— "land that has become Crown land as part of a process by which— (i) another interest in the land will be granted; or (ii) the land will be reserved and set apart for, or dedicated to, a public purpose." I am a little bit confused about this matter. I would like the Minister to explain to me how it is that any person can have a right against the Crown to the grant of an interest in that land. As a lease expires or by some other mechanism land becomes Crown land, how can any person have a right against that land? In addition to that, still in regard to subparagraph (i)—in my experience, one cannot put a caveat on such land. There was never any clear undertaking that another interest in the land will be granted at the time that it becomes Crown land. Ms WARNER: I think that the honourable member is just going around in circles. I am not entirely sure what the point is that he is trying to make. I think that the legislation is drafted in plain English. It is set out quite clearly. There is even a notation at the bottom of this clause. Mr FOLEY: I refer to the provisions of clause 2.13 (1) (b), which provides that city or town land or township land is not available Crown land for the purposes of this legislation. This has been a matter of some concern to urban Aboriginal people insofar as it would appear to render claims to land in cities and townships not possible. Will the Minister confirm that there are existing powers on the part of the Director-General of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to acquire land for the benefit of Aboriginal and Islander people; that is to say, that there are in existence powers whereby land may be acquired for the benefit of Aboriginal and Islander people, albeit not within the provisions of this Bill, nor provided for specifically by a statutory land acquisition fund? Ms WARNER: I thank the honourable member for Yeronga for the question. I would like to reiterate that there is nothing in this Bill which precludes the right of the Director-General of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs from acquiring Legislative Assembly 8274 30 May 1991 land on behalf of Aboriginal people. That is a right that the director, the chief executive of that department, has had over many years. That right is in no way impaired. I point out that there would also have to be a capacity to be able to acquire land in the cities in the Townsville area because there are a large number of Aboriginal services which require that purchase of land, and that is in no way affected by this legislation. However, what is affected by this legislation is the capacity to convert over to Aboriginal title land in towns and cities. Under this legislation, it may be possible to put a claim on land that is acquired outside of towns and cities. That is the position as clearly as I can state it. Mr GILMORE: Without labouring the point too much, the Minister mentioned the notation in subclause (2), which reads— " 'interest' means a legal or equitable interest in the land, but does not include a mining interest." My understanding is that a mining interest is one of the very few tenements that can be placed over land by way of just driving some pegs in the ground and lodging a claim. Going back to paragraph (h), it appears that the Minister has raised something that is not real. It states— "land that has become Crown land if a person has a right . . . " There simply is no mechanism whereby any individual can have a right over Crown land other than by a mining tenement. The paragraph states that a person has a right against the Crown to the grant of an interest in that land. I would like the Minister to explain that because it is simply not clear. Subparagraph (i) states— "another interest in the land will be granted . . . " There is never any guarantee, in my understanding of dealings with land, that there is an irrevocable guarantee in terms of Crown land. Ms WARNER: I suggest that the honourable member rereads the clause. Clause 2.13 (1) (i) states— "land that has become Crown land as part of a process by which— (i) another interest in the land will be granted; or (ii) the land will be reserved and set apart for, or dedicated to, a public purpose;" It must all be read together. I really cannot be blamed for the honourable member's lack of understanding. Mr GILMORE: I agree with the Minister on paragraph (i), and I accept her explanation. I would appreciate an explanation of paragraph (h), because there is a serious problem in the drafting of that clause. I ask the Minister to take advice, because I do not believe that paragraph (h) is sufficiently clear. It indicates that somebody is able to gain some sort of preferential treatment in respect of Crown land by getting a guarantee over Crown land that nobody else is able to obtain. I believe that needs to be explained to this Parliament. Ms WARNER: The issue that is addressed by this clause is that where someone is purchasing or in the process of purchasing Crown land, the area is still Crown land but it has been indicated that there is an interest in that land, because there is a process which is proceeding which makes that land unavailable. However, that does not include the note in subclause (2). I am assured that there are legal situations in which someone may have an interest that is going through a process, but the land is still technically Crown land for the moment. That land is not claimable. Mr HOBBS: Further on that point, what the Minister is really saying is that if any person indicated that he would like a block of land somewhere, he could in fact tie up the whole land system in Queensland. That is what the Minister is saying. This has obviously been drafted about 2 o'clock in the morning by somebody who has left town. Legislative Assembly 8275 30 May 1991

It really needs to be clarified. I feel desperately sorry for the Minister who has been placed in a difficult position by the Premier. It is absolutely scandalous for him to do that and leave the Minister in that position. Ms WARNER: I think the honourable member is really getting overly concerned about a very small point. I am assured that there are legal situations in which more than just a trivial interest has been expressed, and I would also again inform the member that that land has to be gazetted before it becomes claimable, anyway. Clause 2.13, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.14— Mr SLACK (11.37 p.m.): This clause states— "Available Crown land includes the bed and banks of a watercourse or lake only if the bed and banks are— (a) within the external boundaries of land that is otherwise available Crown land. . . " I take it that the clause refers to vacant Crown land that would be available on gazettal for claim and that that is the only implication of that clause. Ms WARNER: Yes. Mr NEAL: I would like some clarification on this matter, because I believe it is quite important. As the member for Burnett said, this clause states— "Available Crown land includes the bed and banks of a watercourse or lake only if the bed and banks are— (a) within the external boundaries of land that is otherwise available Crown land; and (b) capable of being owned in fee simple by a person other than the Crown." I appreciate that that is a provision that already appertains throughout the State in quite a number of fee simple areas and affects people who hold land in fee simple. I want to know whether or not the land that is claimable and which presumably will go to Aboriginal people is then subject to the Water Resources Administration Act and the Land Act. I want to know whether or not Aboriginal people will have the right to dam up the stream, to carry out works on the stream, to engage in gravel extraction, or an industry of a similar nature, within the bed and the banks of the stream on fee simple land, or to interfere with the flow of the water in any way to the detriment of downstream land-holders. Ms WARNER: The answer is, "Yes." The responsibilities for Aboriginal people will be those that apply to freehold title, which are those that the honourable member has described. Mr NEAL: Is it still subject to those other Acts? I realise that it is freehold title, but is it subject to those other Acts, just as other titles are subject to those other Acts? Ms WARNER: Yes. I refer the honourable member to clause 2.20, which states that the application of other laws to Aboriginal land is the same as the application of those laws to non- Aboriginal land. Clause 2.14, as read, agreed to. Clauses 2.15 to 2.18, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.19— Mr GILMORE (11.41 p.m.): I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (c). The clause refers to lands that are not available Crown lands and explains in quite some detail that they include the waters of the sea, freehold land, and in paragraph (c) it refers to "an associated reserve". I ask the Minister: associated with what? Legislative Assembly 8276 30 May 1991

Ms WARNER: I refer the honourable member to the appropriate definition, which states— " 'associated reserve' means land that is reserved and set apart for any of the following purposes under the Land Act 1962— (a) camping-places; (b) pasturage reserves; (c) stock control and health; (d) stock holding paddocks; (e) watering-places; (f) works for obtaining, conserving, distributing or utilising water". I really think that the honourable member should have read the Bill thoroughly before wasting the time of the Committee. Clause 2.19, as read, agreed to. Clause 2.20, as read, agreed to. Clause 3.01— Mr HOBBS (11.42 p.m.): I would like clarification on three matters contained in this clause. Subclause (2) states— "Transferable land need not be surveyed but may be described in a deed of grant . . . " I do not believe that such a provision is available to any other Queenslanders. I am wondering whether other Queenslanders will be able to take advantage of a similar system. Recently, I surveyed a small block of land about 100 yards wide and 500 yards long. That cost me over $1,000. I wonder whether this is a provision which will be available to one group of people but not to others. In addition, what happens in regard to neighbours? Say, for instance, a deed of grant is taken off and the land is surveyed. One neighbour will come out of it a lot better than the other. Subclause (4), which is probably the most important provision in this clause, states— "The Minister may direct the Registrar of Titles to specify in a deed of grant responsibilities that Aboriginal people particularly concerned with the relevant land have agreed to assume in relation to the land." In the Property Law Act there is currently no avenue by which covenants can be recorded on the title records. That is the law at present. I see nothing in that subclause that will ensure that it is recorded. If it is not legal now, how will it be done? My last query is: what are the consequences if the conditions are not carried out? If people who have conditions imposed on their land do not fulfil those conditions, penalties are applied to them. I do not see any penalties prescribed in this clause. Could the Minister answer those questions. Ms WARNER: In response to the first question the honourable member raised in relation subclause (2), I inform him that, if the land already has on it a deed, which is a deed of grant in trust which may be transferred over, there is no need for further surveying, because it is transferable land that is being referred to, not any other area of land. As to subclause (4), which relates to an Aboriginal understanding of the word "responsibilities"—this relates to the way in which Aboriginal people relate to their land and the customary responsibilities that they may have for the land and which they may wish to have included in the form of the title so that the traditional basis upon which that land has been granted to them is absolutely clear and outlines to them and the community the responsibilities that they have for that land. There is no way under this Bill that an enforcement provision can revoke the grant if those responsibilities are not fulfilled. They are simply a guide for Aboriginal people. Legislative Assembly 8277 30 May 1991

Mr HOBBS: They cannot receive the title without its being registered. Under the Property Law Act in Queensland, it is impossible to register a covenant on those titles. It cannot be done. I do not believe that it is possible to do what is contained in this Bill. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I seek some clarification. If I were a neighbour of one of the pieces of land that is being claimed, and the survey is just described, and if I had some sort of conflict with that person about the boundary line, how would I go in a court of law? How would the courts deal with that, if my land is surveyed and I am in court with just a description of the land. Ms WARNER: The honourable member would go to court on the basis of the survey of his land. It seems to me that the adjacent land will be determined having regard to the land that is already defined. Clause 3.01, as read, agreed to. Clause 3.02— Mr SLACK (11.47 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 15, after line 5 add— '(6) in the case of D.O.G.I.T. land, the existing trustee will be the grantee, unless the existing trustee has proposed that the Minister appoint others as grantees in accordance with this section.' " The Opposition has made it quite clear that basically it does not support clause 3.02, under which the Minister appoints the trustees. In fact, the Aboriginal Coordinating Council has indicated that it does not support it either, because it removes the council's right to elect its community councils. Those councils are now acting as trustees to the DOGIT lands. When that land is transferred and becomes claimable land, those community councils will no longer be trustees, and grantees will be appointed. They are already elected people, and they are very confused. They are wondering what their position will be as far as the administration of the areas of land that they control, and libraries, council chambers and land within their towns, is concerned. They have elected their representatives, which they see as their right. They do not believe that the Minister is entitled to appoint her own people. Admittedly, this clause contains a consultation provision. However, that consultation is based on trust. Eventually, the Minister could appoint her own people. Obviously, people will lobby the Minister. All sorts of groups will lobby the Minister. That is the flaw in the member for Caboolture's argument. These problems will arise. I have already stated that problems exist with the present arrangement, but by the same token I do not believe that this is the way to solve them. Irrespective of what the Opposition says, this clause will become part of the Act. The Aboriginal Coordinating Council has discussed this matter with the Minister and with me. It objects to the fact that it might be denied the ability to appoint its people as trustees. The council accepts that, in the long term, the will of the Government will prevail. However, it foresees a problem, because when that land becomes transferable, it will be transferred to a set of trustees or grantees. If it is claimed by a group of Aboriginal people or another clan group, and the tribunal upholds the claim or reallocates land within the area, there is the possibility that another set of trustees will be appointed. The intention of the Opposition's amendment is to avoid a double appointment. The Opposition has indicated quite clearly that it does not agree with the Minister's taking over the role of the trustees and appointing trustees, as opposed to the elected trustees. The last resort of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council is: will the Minister accept this amendment? The council and the Opposition believe that the amendment is reasonable. It takes a link out of the chain and goes some way towards meeting the council's wishes. Even though it is not in favour of the entire clause, if the Minister is prepared to agree to this amendment, the Opposition will accept that. If not, it will divide the Committee on this clause. Legislative Assembly 8278 30 May 1991

Ms WARNER: In respect of the clause—I do not have anything that is hugely problematic. I think that it is redundant. That is the problem with it. Mr Katter: Redundant? What an act of hypocrisy! What a statement of hypocrisy! Ms WARNER: Does the honourable member know the meaning of the word? I will explain. Ever since DOGIT was instituted, it has been mentioned to me a number of times by Aboriginal people that one of the major drawbacks of that form of land tenure for Aboriginal people was that it did not recognise traditional rights on Aboriginal land and traditional ownership. The honourable member for Flinders very well knows that argument. Otherwise, he has never been listening to any of the groups to whom he has been talking. At my first Aboriginal Coordinating Council meeting, it was suggested to me that one thing wrong with DOGIT was that it did not recognise the Aboriginality of land and did not understand Aboriginal land tenure systems. In this legislation, the Government has taken that advice. We have put in a process whereby that Aboriginal land tenure system can be recognised under the law of this land. We know very well that that position does not apply in every Aboriginal community. It is not appropriate to apply it in every Aboriginal community, which is the reason for a level of discretion. But whilst there is a level of discretion under the legislation, there is also a level of compulsion upon the Minister to recognise the Aboriginal people particularly concerned with land. Obviously, that will be a mediative process. I refer to recommendation No. 1—the principal recommendation—of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that the system of Government that applies on Aboriginal communities now is not recognised by Aboriginal people for a whole range of reasons. The very point that the honourable member says is attractive about it—which is the elected system—is the very thing that those people say to any interested observer who cares to ask; that is, elections do not mean all that much in Aboriginal society, that Aboriginal customary behaviour—— Mr Katter interjected. Ms WARNER: A number of people who are present in the gallery tonight have raised that point with me on a number of occasions. One of their major arguments against ATSIC is the fact that, in Aboriginal eyes, election does not recommend anybody. That is a fact of life with which we must deal. However, as I said, the existence or location of traditional owners of a number of communities may not be immediately obvious, and it may very well be appropriate in the first instance to pass the title of that land to the council in the interim. However, if anybody is dissatisfied with anything in clause 3.02 that is done by the Minister, he has immediate recourse to the Land Tribunal, where he can have the whole question about who gets what bit of land adjudicated. The honourable member for Flinders was one of the most notorious Ministers for wandering around and irresponsibly giving bits of land to the wrong people. Mr SLACK: On my understanding, what the Minister said in relation to anybody who is dissatisfied is not true. If they are dissatisfied, their only recourse is to the Minister. How does the Land Tribunal act as an adjudicator on the appointment of trustees? For the Minister to say that those people are not responsive to elected positions is misleading the Parliament. I have a letter dated 10 May, which is addressed to the Premier and which states quite clearly— "The trustees of DOGIT lands should not be changed unless the change is sought by the residents of the community who vote in a referendum proposed by the Community Council. If such a change is sought, the government should consult with the Community and ensure that the new trustees are representative of all major traditional land holding groups in the area. The final structure of the trusteeship should be approved by the Community Council before the Minister presents it to the Governor-in-Council for certification." Legislative Assembly 8279 30 May 1991

The ACC—the Aboriginal Coordinating Council—is a well-recognised representative body of Aboriginal people. The letter continues— "Even if there be a change to the trusteeship of DOGIT lands, the community residential and administration area should remain vested in the Community Council. If the Government does not agree to an extension . . ." I have another letter that is dated 28 May, which states— "The ACC sent you a copy of our land rights policy which was launched on 12 April. We then sent you a further short submission on 10 May. It is unfortunate that you have not seen fit to take our advice. However, to avoid conflict on our communities, we urge you to reconsider at least this one issue before it is too late. We would like this amendment to be put through:" That is the amendment that I have just put before the House. The letter continues— "The ACC is not happy that the government plans to appoint grantees (trustees) who may or may not be the elected Councils for the new deeds to be granted under the Aboriginal Land Bill 1991. We believe the trustees of DOGIT lands should not be changed unless the change is sought by the residents of the Community who vote in a referendum proposed by the Community Council. If such a change is sought, the government should consult with the Community and ensure that the new trustees are representative of all major traditional land holding groups in the area. The final structure of the trusteeship should be approved by the Community Council before the Minister presents it to the Governor-in-Council for certification. Even if there is a change to the trusteeship of DOGIT lands, the Community residential and administration area should remain vested in the Community Council otherwise Community conflict will occur." That is what Opposition members have been saying all along about consultation. The Minister referred to a group of people in the gallery. I am referring to a recognised, responsible, organised group of people who have been the structure that has been recognised and supported by Aboriginal people from all of the communities within the community council that represents those areas of land that are classified as transferable land. They see major problems in what the Minister proposes for their communities, where there is population. They see causes for considerable division. People will be lobbying the Minister to try to sort out many of those problems. With what the Minister proposes in the legislation, she does not realise what she is taking on. To say that the Aboriginal people do not support elected positions is just so much hogwash. Mr KATTER: We have gone easy on the Minister. We thought her intentions were genuine, but it must be explained clearly to everyone in this Chamber that in 1984, when the member for Cunningham and the Leader of the Opposition were on the committee that moved this and risked their—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member really cannot talk about what happened in 1984. Mr KATTER: With all due respect to the Chair, in order to explain the change that is occurring here, one must explain what the situation is at the present time and what it will be after the passing of this clause. The position that was created in this Chamber in April 1984, which we are now changing under this legislation, was that ownership and control of the reserves lay in the hands of the local people. The Minister has said that traditional land rights should be recognised. Surely the people who live at Kowanyama should be the ones who decide who gets what at Kowanyama. This Bill replaces the elected representatives. I wish to put on record that the honourable member for Cook is shaking his head. He is disagreeing with the fact that the elected representatives—that is the shire councils elected by the people themselves—should have the Legislative Assembly 8280 30 May 1991 say, and that the say as to who gets what at Kowanyama on the peninsula should be vested in a Minister elected by a Government that is 2 000 kilometres away in Brisbane. I can understand a schoolteacher from Cairns shaking his head. He knows nothing. He has never lived with the Aboriginal people and does not understand them. He most certainly has no kinship with them. At this point of time, ownership and control of that land was under the white consultants sitting in the lobby—and I hope their names are taken down for posterity. They will remember the Minister and the Premier at the time who took that land back and vested ownership of it in the Minister and the Government of the day. If I, Mr Slack or anyone else is sitting on the Government side of the House in two years' time, then those people will have control of every one of the reserves in Queensland. I wish to let all the communities of Cape York know that Mr Bredhauer is continuing to shake his head. Clause 3.02 (2) states— "The Minister may— (a) remove or suspend trustees appointed under subsection (1) . . . " Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr KATTER: The honourable member should just sit there and cop it. In other words, the owners of this land are there at the whim of the Minister and can be removed at the whim of the Minister. What an insult to the people of Kowanyama, Pormpuraaw or any of the reserves on Cape York Peninsula. As for traditional land rights—they have traditional land rights at Palm Island and in my area around Cloncurry and Mount Isa. What is the Minister going to do? Will she dispossess the entire population of Palm Island? This could only happen as a result of the stupidity of white people who have never had anything to do with people of Aboriginal descent in their entire lives. These are the people who black people call the white "migolos", because they are sell-out merchants who have been the Minister's consultants. Only someone from that sort of background could present anything as stupid, demeaning and offensive to every single principle that I hope all members in this Chamber agree with. Clause 3.02 (2) (a) will be remembered by every person in the gallery, because it states that the Minister may remove or suspend trustees appointed under subsection (1). The people of Aboriginal descent in Brisbane expressed their opinion of this Bill out there in the street. In the last shire council elections in these areas, 10 000 people voted. They belong to the ACC and the ICC and the Opposition has a letter from the ACC rejecting this Bill. This letter makes reference to the international courts and tribunals to which the ACC will justifiably take the Minister. Up until then, George Mye, Getano Lui and all of the elected representatives who were validly and democratically elected by the people had control of the islands. They decided who got what on the islands. They have now been thrown out and the Minister takes their place. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Ms WARNER: That outrage requires little response. However, I will return to the point raised by the member for Burnett in respect of the powers of the tribunal. At no point in this whole process does the Government ever own Aboriginal land. At no point does the Minister ever get the land back. All the Minister is allowed to do under this clause is transfer the title from one group to another in consultation with Aboriginal people. Mr Katter interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member has had his go. The Minister is trying to reply. I called the member to order because he was talking about the Torres Strait Islanders, who are the subject of another Bill altogether. We are debating a clause under the Aboriginal Land Bill. Ms WARNER: It is quite difficult to explain to honourable members opposite, because they refuse to listen, but the fact of the matter is that, in spite of the document put around the gallery by the member for Flinders in an attempt to mislead people even Legislative Assembly 8281 30 May 1991 more, it is not true that the land returns to the Government. It is false. The honourable member should read the Bill. The land never goes back to the Government. All the Minister can do under this clause is simply transfer the trust deed from one group to another, and it has a duty under this Bill to do that in consultation with the Aboriginal people. Obviously, the people on the elected council in the area will be consulted on this matter. I return to the question asked by the member for Burnett, who has been patiently waiting for an answer as to how the tribunal gets in on the act if there are obvious interim arrangements between land trustees transferring from the DOGIT system and the reserve system over to the new system. If disputes arise out of those transfers—and there may very well be disputes because it is not possible to predict every type of claim that might be made—those disputes can be adjudicated between one Aboriginal group as against another at the Land Tribunal. Any decision made in accordance with clause 3.02 will not be the end of the story, because additional claims may be lodged with the land claims tribunal to rectify any mistakes that may have been made. I can assure the honourable member and the ACC that the intent of the amendment is not inconsistent with the clauses contained in the Bill; nor is it inconsistent with the purposes behind the implementation of the legislation. It may very well be that the spirit of the clause will be generated throughout the legislation but, as I say, it would be a redundant step to change the clause. There is no reason to go to that length simply to satisfy the raving lunacy of the member for Flinders. Mr GILMORE: I suggest that this legislation may contain a drafting error, because two different types of land have been discussed. We are talking about the existing deeds of grant in trust areas that have elected councils. As I mentioned during the second-reading stage, other areas of land will be granted under this legislation from time to time, but they will not have elected local government councils. It may well have been the intent of the draftsman to refer to trustees for areas of land that are not controlled by elected councils, and accept the elected councils for the areas of land under deeds of grant in trust. I simply cannot accept the Minister's taking such a patronising view of Aboriginal affairs whereby she insists on the appointment and removal of trustees. The Minister should realise that it is possible she has made a complete mess of the drafting of this legislation because she has simply forgotten that there are two sets of circumstances. It would be possible to accept the elected councils in deeds of grant in trust areas as trustees for their own land. Mr KATTER: I have explained in some considerable detail that ordinary shire council elections are held in Aboriginal communities at the same time as they are held in every other area in Queensland. I think that members of the opposition parties and even members of the Government appreciate that point. Aboriginal communities have been given the right to self-government or self- management. These are local authority areas and, by virtue of the elections, the people are given self- management rights. The previous National Party Government was faced with the question of who should own the land. Should the Government continue to own it and should it decide who should be appointed as trustees? The Minister has something in common with the late Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs because her proposal is identical in every way to the proposal made to me by Mr Pat Killoran, who suggested that the Government should appoint the trustees in whom ownership of the land was vested. I thought that was the most patronising suggestion I had ever heard. When I was Minister, I thought that that suggestion would be both provocative and insulting to every single person of Aboriginal descent in this State. The previous National Party Government had a clear choice. It could decide to appoint the trustees or it could allow the people who have lived in those communities all their lives to appoint the trustees. The present Minister has decided that she should appoint the trustees. I point out that 10 000 people voted in these areas during the last local government elections and they chose approximately 60 people to represent them. Those people made the decision. I venture to suggest that if the idea was suggested to Legislative Assembly 8282 30 May 1991 every single community in Queensland, every single one of them would vote overwhelmingly—to the extent of 80 or 90 per cent—in favour of the communities appointing the trustees. Mr Hayward interjected. Mr KATTER: The member for Caboolture is shaking his head. Does he seriously believe that the people of Woorabinda would prefer to have the Minister making the decision about who should own, run and control their land, or does he think that they should make the decision? The honourable member should answer me by way of interjection. Who does he think the people of Woorabinda would prefer to have? The Committee is being greeted by deafening silence because, if the honourable member suggested that the Minister should make the decision, he would make a gigantic fool of himself and would put himself in the same class as the lady who will go down in history as the worst Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Minister in the history of this State. I have already been told on the telephone on numerous occasions that that is her reputation. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member should just stick to what is in the clause. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I am asking whether any member of this Committee seriously considers that the people of Woorabinda would prefer to place that decision in the hands of the Minister. I realise that Labor members think they are God's gift to creation, but I ask them to imagine that members of the Opposition form the Government after the next election or the election after that one. I do not think that Labor members believe they will be in government for eternity, but perhaps they do. Do they seriously think that the people of Doomadgee or Woorabinda would prefer to have a Government located in Brisbane appointing the owners of their land instead electing the trustees of their land themselves? Does anyone seriously suggest that such a proposition would be considered by the people who live in these communities? I repeat that 10 000 of these people voted in the local government elections. Their thoughts and feelings have not even been referred to. The consultants have made the decisions. Again, I emphasise that 10 000 people voted to elect two bodies and their respective shire councils. They have unanimously condemned the decision that is being given legislative effect tonight. The people have spoken over the last fortnight by marching in the streets. They have passed judgment on this Bill. It is beyond me how civil libertarians such as the member for Yeronga, Mr Foley, could seriously claim that the Government of Queensland should make the decision about what should happen at Kowanyama. He must stand condemned in the eyes of every fair-minded Queenslander.Members of the Labor Party will stand condemned by not only the people of Queensland today but by future generations, if they happen to be re-elected to office. I produce the ACC letter and the ICC letter. People have spoken in the streets. Mr HAYWARD: We have just listened to that loud-mouthed thing over there who absolutely appalled me. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr HAYWARD: If he is somewhat upset, I withdraw that. The point is that this clause is the pivotal part of the legislation. What the honourable member seems to be confusing and what we cannot seem to get through his head is that, because someone is elected—— Mr Katter: What about the Aboriginal Coordinating Council? Mr HAYWARD: Look, you've had your go; I'm having mine. Now just shut your bloody mouth. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That comment is unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. And I ask the honourable member for Flinders not to interject. Mr HAYWARD: I withdraw. Legislative Assembly 8283 30 May 1991

Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I heard the interjection which provoked the honourable member for Caboolture. However, he should not have used that unparliamentary language. Mr Cooper interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. Mr HAYWARD: I apologise to the House. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Is the Chairman saying that that type of language in this Parliament does not deserve a warning? The CHAIRMAN: Order! I asked the honourable member to withdraw it and he did. I also asked him not to use unparliamentary language. Mr HAYWARD: Mr Chairman, I apologise sincerely to the Chamber. However, it really upsets me. This clause is pivotal to the operation of the Bill. It seems to be very difficult to make Opposition members understand that, because a person is elected in a community, that does not necessarily mean that he is the legitimate, traditional owner of the land of that community. That is very important and that is what this clause is about. The member for Flinders seems to be arguing that, because a person is elected to a particular DOGIT council, that person should have the right to the title to that land. The fact of the matter is, as this clause points out, that that is not necessarily appropriate in every case. Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Opposition members have had a chance to have their say. Surely every member has the right to be heard and to put forward his point of view. Honourable members should give the member for Caboolture that privilege. Mr HAYWARD: The problem is that Mr Katter picks on a couple of DOGIT councils and says, "What about Woorabinda? What about Palm Island?" The Bill does not negate that. That is not what this is about. If the honourable member was fair dinkum and understood it—he should understand it—he would realise that people who are elected in certain DOGIT areas may not necessarily be the traditional owners of the that land. Mr Rowell: The deed of grant in trust areas? Mr HAYWARD: The deed of grant in trust areas, yes. Subclause (3) provides— "Before exercising powers under this section, the Minister must consult with, and consider the views of, the Aboriginal people particularly concerned with the land." I do not know how many times I have to read that subclause. In some cases, those people concerned with the land may be the last batch of councillors elected in various DOGIT areas, but not in every case. That is why this subclause must be understood and must be supported. Subclause (4) provides— "In exercising powers under this section, the Minister must, as far as practicable, act in a way that is consistent with any Aboriginal tradition applicable to the land concerned." I am simply trying to say that honourable members must deal with the overall picture of the 14 DOGIT areas. When they do that, they cannot just say, "What about Woorabinda? What about Palm Island?" That is the easy, simplistic and silly way. They must look at the overall picture and recognise that in some cases, which is what the subclause allows for, the people who are elected in the local council elections may not necessarily be the traditional owners of that land. Are Opposition members trying to Legislative Assembly 8284 30 May 1991 say that we should lock those people out? This is a very serious point. What honourable members are proposing is wrong. This clause is very important. If honourable members understand what the Bill is about, they will realise that this clause is the most serious clause in the Bill. It deserves serious consideration, not juvenile point-scoring. Mr SLACK: I appreciate the impassioned pleas of the member for Caboolture. However, a couple of issues are involved. We may have an elected council—I understand what the Minister is saying—but then we may have a situation in which the tribunal comes along and makes an allocation to a traditional owner of land that may be within the town that the council controls. We get down to the power that the actual trustees have. The people are concerned that there are conflicting powers. I take the point that those people may not be elected people. For argument's sake, what happens if a claim is made on land on which a library has been built? What happens if the traditional owners are found not to reside within the area but make a claim to that land? What is the Minister's solution to that? Could the Minister outline to the Committee the powers of the trustees? The Minister is going to say who are the owners of the land. The tribunal is not the adjudicator in regard to who is appointed as a trustee. The tribunal is the adjudicator in regard to the actual ownership of the land, not who the Minister appoints as trustees. The Minister appoints the trustees from whoever she decides are the owners of the land. The Minister appoints those trustees within areas that are not the outside areas—say, in the larger communities—but the areas that are controlled within the town area. That is where the concern really lies. I am not misunderstanding the Bill or trying to be emotional about it, I am just trying to be objective. The purpose of moving the amendment to insert a new clause 6 was simply to overcome a problem that was foreseen. The Aboriginal people do not see that there is a major conflict with the rest of it, which the Minister says is the case. That is why the Opposition cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the amendment. Ms WARNER: A lot of the issues that the member for Burnett raises are quite valid. I do not believe that the deed of grant in trust or, indeed, the community services legislation ever really resolved questions of land-ownership, religious responsibilities, customary law or even local government issues on Aboriginal communities. In many ways, that is why the Public Accounts Committee had to carry out an investigation. That is why there has been a lot of disputation and a lack of resolution, which the member for Roma has obviously never even noticed because he has paid so little attention to Aboriginal people. However, those are the facts. Mr Cooper: That was rather uncalled for. Ms WARNER: I think that a lot of the remarks that have been made in this Chamber tonight have been rather uncalled for. I repeat that the issues that the member for Burnett raises are quite valid. However, this Bill does not seek to establish every single aspect of Aboriginal life, as have some other Acts in Queensland's history. This Bill simply seeks to allocate land to Aboriginal people. Other issues related to how those communities operate or how they have relationships with one another are not addressed by this legislation. Those issues will be addressed further by the community services review committee, which is operating to update and to bring some improvement to the community services legislation in respect of DOGIT. In other areas—in the reserve lands—a lot of these issues will have to be renegotiated within the communities themselves. People do not have to live by a code of conduct set down by Parliament; they really don't. All that the Government has to do is to allocate land to people—to the right people. The Government does not have to say how everything else should operate from that date, nor does it intend to. Mr LITTLEPROUD: That partly answers some of the concerns that I have. As I understand it, the Minister has said that the new trustees that she is going to appoint are going to decide on land- ownership in a DOGIT area. However, I was worried that Legislative Assembly 8285 30 May 1991 those other functions of organising a community—— Ms Warner: Which will continue to exist. Mr LITTLEPROUD: If they continue to exist, are they going to be left with a local authority, or as close as we have to a local authority, so that there will be two groups of people? The Minister's trustees will decide land-ownership. These people are still going to have a local authority, so they will not be disfranchised with regard to having elected people look after their community interests in terms of the aspirations that they have as a community, just like the rest of Queensland. Ms WARNER: I am not going to try to tell Aboriginal people how they should organise those matters. Considerable discussions have been held on Aboriginal communities over a long period about the very issue of the relationship between the total system that was set up under the community services legislation, and how wrong that was, and the attempt to actually delineate between the various functions of the council. Quite frankly, one of the least fundamental functions that was ever explained to me was the land-holding function. In fact, the ACC itself, in discussions over a period, has said that one of the things that was wrong with the deed of grant in trust legislation was its lack of recognition of traditional Aboriginal ownership. That has been said because these people are part of those communities in which the social relations are not smooth and have not actually taken very well to the imposition of a whole load of rules and regulations set down under the community services legislation. This Government is in the process of amending that legislation. It will be amended so that the controls are removed. Aboriginal people in this State will then truly have autonomy and self-determination. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am still confused. Take, for example, the situation in a community like that in which an individual, a Queenslander with individual rights, is being badly mistreated by some other group within that DOGIT area. Is the Minister going to say that the laws of Queensland are not going to apply, that those people are not going to have access to natural justice in Queensland, and that a dispute has to be settled in the local area? Is the Minister going to leave those people to settle it themselves? Are they going to have the protection of the laws of Queensland with regard to access to the courts and so on? Mr KATTER: Members of the Opposition have got used to Hawke-speak and Keating-speak. However, I will remind the Committee of what the honourable member for Caboolture had to say. He said that just because they are the elected representatives, that does not mean that they should have any say over the land. The people of these areas could say, "Just because you are the elected representatives of Queensland, you should not necessarily have any say over their land." There is considerable naivete on the part of some of members. The Government does not seem to understand—and it causes me great pain to say this—that most of the black people in Queensland were rounded up and herded into different areas at the discretion of the Director of the Department of Native Affairs. In fact, people were brought down from the peninsula to the southern part of the State. Is the Minister seriously claiming that all of the people presently at Cherbourg should be thrown out? Bernie Buttons would claim vociferously that he should own all of Cherbourg. What the Minister has said is that the traditional owners should take over the reserve. The Minister has made the statement in this Chamber that the traditional owners should resume their traditional ownership. Does the Minister seriously believe that five people on Cherbourg should displace the other 2 000? The Minister said that I used only two examples. I can take up the time of the Committee and quote as examples all 17 of the community areas in Queensland. The definitive thing that is happening here is that yesterday the black people had control of their areas. Each of the reserve areas, as they were once called—the community areas as they are now called—was controlled by the people who lived in those areas. If the Government is saying that they should be thrown out and another group of people, 95 Legislative Assembly 8286 30 May 1991 per cent of whom might be of European descent, should be able to come back and displace them, then it is putting up a proposition that no sane person could possibly agree to. What is happening here is that the socialists are simply taking back control of the land that our Government gave to the local people to own and control. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham, I am proud to say, risked their political lives to deliver ownership to those people. Not one single person on the other side of the Chamber was willing to risk his political life to leave that ownership with the people. So I hope the Government enjoys the 7 million acres that it has just thieved from the original Australians. Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 30 NOES, 44 Resolved in the negative. Clause 3.02, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3.03 to 3.10, as read, agreed to. Clause 3.11— Ms WARNER (12.39 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 19, omit line 9 and insert— 'consent or agreement; and (c) they have subsequently given the Aboriginal people notice of not less than one month of their intention to make the grant, give the consent or enter into the agreement.' " Subclause (6) states— "Contravention of subsection (5) does not invalidate the interest or agreement concerned." As a result, proposed paragraph (c) will be inserted to allow for a 28-day cooling-off period so that the community may become aware of what the agreed interest might be. After that 28-day period, it becomes a binding agreement and subclause (6) therefore applies. It was felt that the amendment was necessary to ensure that people did not enter into an agreement without telling anybody else about it and then being forced, by subclause (6), to keep to it. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3.11, as ramended, agreed to. Legislative Assembly 8287 30 May 1991

Clauses 3.12 to 5.01, as read, agreed to. Clause 5.02— Mr HOBBS (12.41 a.m.): This clause refers to the leases that in the future will be made available to the Aboriginal people. There will be inalienable freehold title and there will also be leases in perpetuity that will be granted for cultural and economic purposes. I want to talk about those. I refer also to the Minister's earlier reply when I raised the matter of inalienable freehold title not needing to be surveyed. The Minister's answer was that the DOGIT lands that presently exist are already surveyed, so therefore they will not need to be surveyed again. I accepted that response. However, this clause relates to leases that can be granted anywhere throughout Queensland. The Minister said that these leases need not be surveyed. There is not a lot of consistency between the various clauses. I would like the Minister to answer that. Ms WARNER: I do not think that the honourable member ever came to grips with the previous clause that was debated. I point out that the conditions that apply under this clause are quite consistent and quite legally appropriate. There does not appear to be a legal necessity for going through the detailed procedure that the member opposite suggests. Mr HOBBS: The Bill provides for the creation of a lease of the type that any Queenslander can enter into. She is saying that the land does not have to be surveyed. Firstly, that is discriminatory and, secondly, it is just not feasible. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the problem. I think she was caught out on the first clause that was debated fully. I cannot see how she will be able to get around this. She really needs to look at this clause, redraft it and present it again to this Chamber. Ms WARNER: The land can be described by reference to the adjacent boundaries. It does not need to be independently surveyed. I believe that the honourable member opposite is making the issue unnecessarily complicated. It appears as though he is trying to make a major issue out of this matter. Mr KATTER: I suppose one can thank the Minister for some small mercies that at least the private holdings were left intact. The thrust toward private ownership that was made in 1984 resulted in a very dramatic change in the economic performance of these areas. Until the changes of 1984, most of the commercial operations were run by white people and administered from Brisbane. After the changes, most of the commercial operations shifted over to private ownership—or we desperately tried to shift them over to private ownership. They were most certainly on the way there. At the very least, they were under local control. The results were very dramatic. How dramatic those achievements were must be stated once again to the Committee. The community stores went from a loss of half a million dollars per annum to a profit of $900,000. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will get back to the clause. Mr KATTER: With all due respect, Mr Chairman, I believe that this is relevant. Members are discussing whether the land is to be privately owned and delineated by surveying markers, or whether there will be no privately owned land, only collectively owned land. The statistics indicate that we should be walking down the pathway of privately owned land. The Queensland legislation was dramatically successful because, unlike the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria or New South Wales, we introduced a concept of private ownership. A lot of the anthropologists tell me that we reintroduced the concept of private ownership because that was how it was in the days prior to European settlement. I crave your indulgence, Mr Chairman, to state how successful that experiment—if one likes to use that word—was. The cattle turn-over leapt from 900 to 5 800 a year; the crayfish industry turn-over leapt from 0.3 million to 7 million a year; and the fishing turn-over at Massig Island went from 14 000 to 292 000. The CHAIRMAN: Order! This really has nothing to do with the clause. Legislative Assembly 8288 30 May 1991

Mr KATTER: I wish to address the premise that is being put forward. If we are to survey those areas, we are talking about a prohibitively expensive exercise. Obviously, it will be impossible to subdivide land and take up privately owned land if surveying is required. We are referring generally to, and making provision for, the administration of the Act in such a way that surveying will not be required. I point out to the Minister that, until four or five years ago, the mining industry in Queensland had no surveying demands placed upon it. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of leases changed hands without that land being surveyed. There is no necessity for formal surveys within what was once upon a time known as the old reserve land areas. I venture to submit that if that imposition is put upon the land, no land will be able to move out to private ownership. I regret to say that, in my opinion, the Lands Department constantly played that sort of game to prevent land going out to private ownership in those areas. Clause 5.02, as read, agreed to. Clauses 5.03 to 5.12, as read, agreed to. Clause 5.13— Ms WARNER (12.49 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 34, omit line 34 and insert— 'consent or agreement; and (c) they have subsequently given the Aboriginal people notice of not less than one month of their intention to make the grant, give the consent or enter into the agreement.' " This amendment has effectively the same purpose as the previous amendment, but it is found in a different place in the legislation. Mr BREDHAUER: My comment does not relate to the amendment. But I ask the Minister: given that the Bill does not provide for statutory land councils, what provisions can the Government make to provide resources to Aboriginal groups to make and support claims—and I include technical support—to negotiate with people such as mining companies and those who are interested in other ventures on Aboriginal lands? Ms WARNER: Although the legislation does not provide for land management bodies such as land councils, it may very well be that there will be dealings on land in a particular region where it may be necessary for Aboriginal people from different parts of that land to get together for the purposes of dealing with a possible resort, a mining company or some other development on the land that will have an effect on the region rather than just on the local area. In a number of communities, prospects of such developments are occurring. If those communities are seeking to form a land council or similar body to deal with those management issues, this Government will consider providing funding for them to be able to offer the correct advice to the owners and to ensure that Aboriginal interests are protected and promoted. Mr KATTER: Let me be kind to the Minister and say that she did not write this Bill. Subclause 5.13 (4) states— "The grantees of land held under an Aboriginal lease may— (a) with the prior written consent of the Minister . . ." That a person's land can be transferred only at the discretion of a Minister is appalling arrogance, and walks all over the top of the sensitivity of the people with whom we are dealing. This clause replaces a section of the previous Act that put the transfer of land into the hands of a tribunal consisting of a stipendiary magistrate and at least two local justices of the peace, if my memory serves me correctly. The point is that the judicial tribunal consisted of a judicial person—a magistrate—and justices of the peace from the local community—the tribal elders, if one likes. Those people previously had that right and power. Once again, those powers are being taken away from the local community and vested at the discretion of a political appointment—the Minister. It is absolutely unbelievable; it would not be acceptable in any other place in society. To impose it Legislative Assembly 8289 30 May 1991 upon those people is to give them such a low status compared with the rest of society that it must be insulting and offensive to them. I recommend to the Minister that whoever drafted the Bill be sacked and replaced by a person with brains, integrity and some sort of sensitivity and feeling for the people with whom they deal. I am pleased to see that the clause introduces the ability to mortgage. The other point that I wish to raise is a technical matter, but it is very important. In dealing with land, the National Party tried, wherever possible, to avoid the term "Aborigine". If a racial test were imposed, we would find ourselves in the same position as South Africa. How do people prove their racial inheritance? I venture to suggest that that is enormously difficult for large numbers of people in society, whether they be of Aboriginal or any other descent. So, the National Party tried desperately to avoid that. The criterion that we used was community residency. We believe that, whatever people's racial origins, if they belong to and are accepted by their local community as locals, they should have the same rights, powers and privileges as any other local. The community should not be divided along racial lines. For the benefit of those members who think that the National Party is talking about something insubstantial here, I point out that very large segments of all of the communities in the peninsula are populated by people of Torres Strait Islander descent. This Bill opens enormous avenues and opportunities for racial conflict. It will be argued from now on that some Aborigines are Europeans and not Aborigines. That is what the Minister has done. She has drawn up the Bill along racial lines. There is no necessity to do that. If the Minister had at least the common decency to confer with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, that council would have made to the Minister the same recommendations that it made to the National Party, that is, that it could determine who is a community resident and that that be the criterion. Every fair-minded person in this place would agree that that is the sort of criterion that should be in the Bill. I cannot remember dealing with one person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent in the State of Queensland who did not agree that the qualification should be community residency rather than race. That was the way that those people wanted it and that was the way that they asked for it. The Government has thrown that out the window and has created enormous racial problems in those areas by setting a criterion that, quite frankly, cannot be met. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I believe that the honourable member for Flinders is wandering considerably from the clause that we are debating now. I urge you to urge him to come to the point. The CHAIRMAN: Order! As the Minister knows the real aspects of the clause, it would be appropriate that, if she indicates that the member for Flinders is way off the clause, I should ask him to return to it. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, you set the criteria here. Let me just state that clause 5.13 (2) (a) states— "grant a lease or licence over the whole or a part of the land to— (i) an Aborigine particularly concerned with the land." I am appreciative that the words "particularly concerned with the land" were put in the Bill. However, it is absolutely appalling that the word "Aborigine" was put in the Bill. That shows a complete ignorance of the position that exists in the community. People who might be of 95 per cent European descent will suddenly be discriminated against. We will have enormous problems with, among others, people who are of part Torres Strait Islander descent. Many people of Maori descent now live in those areas. It is lamentable that that sort of criterion was introduced when there was no necessity for its introduction. For the past three years, we used the criterion of community residency. It seemed to work particularly well. An appeals tribunal was in place. Once again, the local people have been replaced by the Minister. I hope that that person has very great wisdom, because he or she will make every single determination. The local people are Legislative Assembly 8290 30 May 1991 left with no powers whatsoever. Mr FOLEY: Let me speak very briefly in support of the amendment proposed by the Minister. In so doing, I note that it provides again for a cooling-off period and is one of the amendments accepted by the Government, as urged in the submissions to the Government from Father Frank Brennan. His contribution should be acknowledged in that respect. The second point that I wish to make briefly is this: during the course of this debate, the honourable member for Flinders repeatedly mounted an attack upon draftspersons who are not privy to this debate. That is unfortunate. It is open to him to argue as forcefully as he wishes against the wording, but to mount an attack on Parliamentary Counsel and upon the distinguished legal practitioners who were involved in this matter is most unfortunate and should not be condoned. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5.13, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5.14 to 5.19, as read, agreed to. Clause 5.20— Ms WARNER (12.59 a.m.): It has been raised that there is a degree of uncertainty about this clause and that there is a need to clarify what the powers of the Minister may be in respect of this clause. I therefore move the following amendment— "At page 37, after line 14 insert— '(2) There is to be a board of management for the National Park, the composition of which the Minister must approve in writing. (3) The Aboriginal people particularly concerned with the National Park land are to be represented on the board of management.' " That states very clearly that Aboriginal people are to be represented on that board, and there will be some subsequent amendments to the legislation to give further meaning to that purpose. Mr SLACK: The Minister referred to some confusion about clause 5.20. I also wish to include in my remarks clause 5.21, because reference is made in that clause to the National Parks and Wildlife Act. I take it that, when reference is made to the Minister in the legislation, that is the Minister for Environment and that the director referred to in the legislation is the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Clause 5.20 (2) states— "The Director must— (a) before the grant of the land, prepare a management plan . . ." I take it that that is a reference to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and that in clause 5.20 (2) (b), where it states "from time to time as requested by the Minister", that is a reference to the Minister for Environment, and not the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. I will refer to clause 5.21 in conjunction with this clause. Clause 5.21 (b) states— "subject to this Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 applies to the National Park as though it had all remained Crown land." I take the point that the land remains subject to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, but the clause also states that it is subject to this legislation. I assume that it is primarily subject to the provisions of the legislation before us and that the clause in it take precedence over the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Ms WARNER: No. Mr SLACK: I am asking for clarification. Legislative Assembly 8291 30 May 1991

Ms WARNER: The honourable member was correct when he made his earlier points in relation to the Minister and the director. Clause 5.21 (b) states— "subject to this Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 applies to the National Park as though it had all remained Crown land." But under the first clause the national park land is subject to this Bill. There is an interrelationship between the two pieces of legislation in different respects, but a number of the features of the National Parks and Wildlife Act are reflected, condoned and supported within this Bill. Clause 5.20 (4) states— "In exercising functions under subsection (2) the Director must, as far as practicable, but subject to this section, section 5.21 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975, act in a way that is consistent with any Aboriginal tradition . . ." The two Acts become interdependent upon each other and the honourable member would probably be aware that the National Parks and Wildlife Act will have to be amended to be consistent with this legislation. The CHAIRMAN: Order!I will allow the honourable member for Burnett to raise points in clause 5.21. Mr SLACK: I refer to the amendment that the Minister has just made. There is to be a board of management for the national park, the composition of which the Minister must approve in writing. The Aboriginal people particularly concerned with national park land are to be represented on the board of management. I take it that that board of management will be at a local level. The management plan is brought down from the national parks director without any input from the board of management. The board will be made up of people from the area, and I understand from what the Minister said previously that those people will include not only Aboriginal people, but also other people around that national park. Their role will not be a finite one. It will be a role to make recommendations for the management of the national park. It will not actually override the powers provided under the National Parks and Wildlife Act as such or the duties and responsibilities of the director and officers of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Mr ELLIOTT: In relation to clauses 5.20 and 5.21—I ask the Minister to give us an example based on Fraser Island and the proposal that Tony Fitzgerald has made in his report. Basically, he indicates that, to begin with, it will be a regional park on the World Heritage List. The Minister for Environment will be the responsible Minister and the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service will have responsibility for enforcing the management plan not only for the national park itself, but also for the whole region both inside and outside the national park. No-one will be able to do anything—put up a proposal for a resort development or anything of that kind—that is not in keeping with the ideals and ideas contained in the management plan. I ask: how does this Bill then relate to that example, because there is an indication that there will be people of Aboriginal descent on the first committee? This committee will come directly under the control of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and will be a representative body, as indicated by our shadow spokesman. Under that committee again will be a committee of experts who will advise the representative committee. How will all that relate to this Bill with respect to the Fraser Island example? Ms WARNER: I am not sure whether the honourable member has suddenly invented another committee or not. That is certainly not in this legislation. The management board is self-evident. Yes, there will be representatives of interested parties on that board. In no way do I wish to pre-empt the development of that discussion between the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Aboriginal people concerned with the particular area. One cannot say exactly who will be represented on which board, because there will be different local circumstances in different areas. Quite frankly, I do not know which committee the honourable member is talking about, and I ask him: does it really matter at this time of night, when he has simply invented it? Legislative Assembly 8292 30 May 1991

Mr ELLIOTT: No, I have not invented it. It is in Tony Fitzgerald's report on Fraser Island. The Minister is confusing the two issues. Ms WARNER: The Government has not adopted those recommendations at this stage. The parts of that report that refer to the Aboriginal ownership of national parks are contained in this legislation. This is a proposal supported by Tony Fitzgerald, but he does not go into details because he was aware of the development of this legislation. Mr KATTER: One of the previous speakers made some remarks about the drafting of this Bill. With respect to this clause, I made some remarks about the drafting of the legislation and I said that the people who advised the Minister had drafted a Bill that is insensitive, stupid, arrogant and paternalistic. An honourable member opposite said that that was incorrect, so I apologise to the people concerned. If they did not do it, I must assume that the Minister did it, so I direct my remarks about the Bill being insensitive, stupid, arrogant and paternalistic at her. I thank the honourable member for his advice, because I thought some outsiders had drafted the legislation. Obviously, however, members of the Labor Party did it, so I will give them the credit. I thank the honourable member for his advice. I cannot possibly agree with the general concept that national parks should be handed over, which is obviously what is being done under this clause. By the same token, to say that GRMPA should have control over the waters around Palm Island is really an appalling proposition. Ms Warner: We are not talking about Palm Island. Mr KATTER: But it is. The CHAIRMAN: Order! We are not talking about Palm Island now. Mr KATTER: I am not talking about Palm Island, which is off Townsville. It is not up in Torres Strait, Mr Chairman. Opposition members interjected. Mr KATTER: I was not casting aspersions upon the Chair, I was just trying to be helpful. The area around those islands has been fished by the local Aboriginal community for many hundreds, if not many thousands, of years. To deprive those people of access to those waters is a most insensitive, arrogant and cruel act. I do not believe that I am overstating the position. I certainly believe that those people should be given access to those areas. A similar position exists at Wujal Wujal. A national park begins right on the very boundary of that community. Traditionally, those people and their fathers before them have gone into those areas. To punish them for going into those areas to do a bit of shooting or fishing is a most unfair act. While I certainly do not agree with the wider implications of the Bill, the insensitivity of such measures must be taken into consideration. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I do not believe that what was said by the member opposite really had very much relevance to this clause. However, I draw your attention to changes in the numbering of the clauses. The CHAIRMAN: The amendment that is currently before the Committee is yet to be voted on. Mr HOBBS: I wish to comment on the Government's program for the acquisition of national parks. The Government will take land from one group and transfer it to a different group. That does not necessarily mean that a particular block of land will be transferred in that way, but it will be possible for any national park under the acquisition program to be made the subject of a claim under this Bill; that is, any national park area in the 4 per cent of land that will be designated as national park land by the end of the three-year period. Mr Ardill: If they can establish a claim. Legislative Assembly 8293 30 May 1991

Mr HOBBS: Yes. If those people can establish a claim, they will be able to have that land. I wish to point out some of the proposed parks that will be able to be claimed. I have a map that could be described as a hit-list. It shows 14 areas between Mitchell and the south-west corner, which is a very small part of the State. To give some indication of what will happen, I cite the example of a young couple who live out my way. Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. Is the young couple who live out his way really relevant to this clause? Mr HOBBS: Yes, they are. Of course they are. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I will let the honourable member continue for another minute or so, and then I will have to bring him back to the clause. Mr HOBBS: What I am saying is very relevant to the Bill. These people sold a family block of land that was situated 60 miles out of town on a dirt road. They bought a block of land situated 20 miles out of town on a bitumen road, and are very happy to be there. It was only a matter of a couple of weeks ago that they arrived home and found a letter on their doorstep. The letter stated that their land would be taken as part of a national park. The young woman involved would be in her mid-thirties. Every time someone talks to her, she cries all the time. Nobody can blame her for that. Mr Johnson: There are a lot of them like that. Mr HOBBS: Yes. Their land was freehold land, which will be available, as national park land, to be acquired by others. Mr DAVIES: I rise to a point of order. I previously drew your attention, Mr Chairman, to Standing Order 253, which states that the debate must be relevant. It does not have to be the Minister who raises the point. This debate is not relevant, and it should be ruled out of order. Opposition members interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I cannot really see how it is relevant, either, because the member is talking about the land being made into a national park. Mr HOBBS: That is right. The CHAIRMAN: That is different, because we are now talking about Aborigines possibly having a claim after the land is declared a national park. I suggest that the honourable member return to the clause. Mr HOBBS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I know of five other examples. The process has started; the National Parks and Wildlife Service is proposing to take over these places now. Under this clause, those properties will be eligible to be taken over as national parks. I am trying to point out that many of the people on this hit-list have lived on that land for generations. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I must protest. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not relevant. That is dealt with by another Bill, not by this Bill. Mr ROWELL: In the event of World Heritage listing of an area that is also national park, which would be the dominant authority? The CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the honourable member in his proper seat? Mr ROWELL: No. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I cannot recognise the honourable member. Mr ROWELL: Now that I am in my seat, I ask the Minister: in the event of World Heritage listing of an area that is also national park, which would be the dominant authority Legislative Assembly 8294 30 May 1991 over that area? If work was to be carried out in that national park, who would have authority for that work? Ms WARNER: The question is simply not relevant to anything, because it does not matter whether it is under World Heritage listing or not. It is a matter of supreme irrelevance to the question of whether Aboriginal people can claim land in national parks. The question of World Heritage listing may be relevant to other things, but not to this. Mr KATTER: Although the reference made by the member for Warrego might have been indirect, what we are arguing is that we have a Government in Queensland that is taking land off private owners and moving that land over to public ownership. The CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not relevant. Amendment agreed to. Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendment— "At page 37, line 15, omit— '(2)' and insert— '(4)'." This is simply changing the numbering. Amendment agreed to. Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendment— "At page 37, line 15, after 'must' insert— ', in cooperation with the board of management'." The particular relevance of this amendment is that, when the management plan is reviewed, that must be done by the director in cooperation with the board of management rather than by the director alone. Mr FOLEY: This amendment should not pass without an acknowledgment of how important it is. It allows for Aboriginal participation not merely in the implementation of a management plan but in its preparation, and that is of vital importance if Aboriginal people are to have a truly effective voice in planning the scheme of arrangement which is to obtain in respect of national parks over which a claim has been granted, otherwise they would merely be in a position in which they could implement a plan arrived at without any input from them. The Minister is to be congratulated for putting this amendment before the Committee. Amendment agreed to. Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendments— "At page 37, line 22, omit— '(3)' and insert— '(5)' "; "At page 37, line 22, omit— '(2)' and insert— '(4)' "; "At page 37, line 25, omit— '(4)' and insert— '(6)' "; Legislative Assembly 8295 30 May 1991

"At page 37, line 25, omit— '(2)' and insert— '(4)' "; "At page 37, line 30, omit— '(5)' and insert— '(7)' "; "At page 37, line 33, omit— '(6)' and insert— '(8)'." Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I just wanted to—— Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I protest. He cannot complain about the numbers. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Flinders does have a right to speak. Mr KATTER: I just wanted to make a general observation about this group of amendments. Am I allowed to do that? The CHAIRMAN: Order! Yes. Mr KATTER: Government members seem to think that they are running the place, Mr Chairman. Up till this evening, 2 per cent of the State was owned by the black people and now another 2 per cent of the State will be owned by the Government. With the area of national park to be doubled, that is another 2 per cent, which brings the ownership by the State Government of land to 6 per cent of the State. Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I protest. This has nothing to do with the numerical ordering contained in this amendment. Amendments agreed to. Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendment— "At page 38, omit lines 1 to 6 and insert— '(b) that the management plan is to be implemented by the board of management.' " This amendment simply clarifies what the powers of the board of management will be. It ensures that the interests of Aboriginal people and the interests of conservation of the area will be further protected. Amendment agreed to. Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendments— "At page 38, line 7, omit— '(7)' and insert— '(9)' "; "At page 38, line 14, omit— '(8)' and insert— '(10).' " Amendments agreed to. Legislative Assembly 8296 30 May 1991

Clause 5.20, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5.21 to 6.02, as read, agreed to. Clause 6.03— Ms WARNER (1.26 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 39, omit line 25, and insert— 'the proposed route; and (c) they have subsequently given the Aboriginal people notice of not less than one month of their intention to enter into the agreement.' " This is a previous amendment that is being repeated for consistency as part of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6.03, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7.01, as read, agreed to. Clause 7.02— Mr SLACK (1.27 a.m.): I notice that the Government has now virtually adopted the policy of the National Party of opposing mining rights in regard to Aboriginal land but that it makes a commitment to give or return to the Aboriginal communities money that has come in from royalties from the land. I would like the Minister to explain, if she can, just how that is going to operate. The Minister says that that will be announced shortly, but is she going to acknowledge that all communities should share in that benefit? Where the mineral is discovered on one particular community, is the royalty going to be shared by all the communities, or will most of the benefits go back to the community where the royalty has come from? As I explained very carefully in my contribution during the second-reading debate, one of the reasons why the National Party was against the provision of mining royalties to the people on the land was the inequality that could develop from that provision, not only the inequality between those people within the Aboriginal community and other people who own freehold land, for argument's sake, because they have not got that same right, but also the inequality that could develop between the two, three or however many communities there are where there is a situation in which one has the mining rights, say, if minerals have been discovered, and there are royalties coming back there, and the other community that has not got access to that royalty is disadvantaged. Ms WARNER: The legislation allows for there to be a partial payment of royalties to Aboriginal people. Part of that money will go to the Aboriginal people on whose land the mining is taking place. Obviously, they would deserve a benefit. There is an added incentive for those people to consent to mining on their land because they will get a direct benefit from it. However, a proportion of those royalties will be made available for the benefit of Aboriginal people throughout the State, which is also fair and reasonable. There is no reason to confine those benefits to one particular section of Aboriginal people. Clause 7.02, as read, agreed to. Clause 8.01, as read, agreed to. Clause 8.02— Mr SLACK (1.30 a.m.): I have a very valid reason for raising this clause. In my response to the Minister's second-reading speech, I said that members of the Opposition did not support the Bill. We accept now that the decisions are going to be made or sorted out by the tribunal. The clause states— "(1) The members of the Tribunal are to be appointed by the Governor in Council." Legislative Assembly 8297 30 May 1991

In her second-reading speech, the Minister stated— "In the evaluation of any particular case it is envisaged that the chairperson would be able to appoint both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members to the tribunal." It would appear to me there is some conflict in that. Ms WARNER: I think it is envisaged here that the tribunal as a whole would be appointed by the Governor in Council and that the allocation of particular people to determine particular claims would be made by the chairperson of the tribunal. I would imagine that is the way it would proceed. Mr SLACK: What the Minister is actually saying is that she will have a tribunal consisting of a number of persons appointed by the Governor in Council, but she intends to increase that tribunal for separate claims. Ms WARNER: No. I think the way it will work is that the chairperson will most likely be a full-time appointee, and there may be others, but there may very well be a panel of people drawn on from time to time when there is a claim, and a person will sit and adjudicate on that claim, rather than there being full-time employees of the tribunal. The chairperson would have—— Mr SLACK: I recognise the strength of that culture, but, by the same token, we must be realistic and accept that there are people now out there who are in a cultural void. No-one would deny that. No- one would deny all of the principles to which the Minister referred. I accept that there will be available at the tribunal advisers upon whom the chairman could call for assistance. There is either a tribunal or there is not. The Minister is appointing the tribunal. I would understand that if some outside advice was needed, that could be requested. But those people would not actually sit in on tribunal hearings, otherwise it could be open for people with different interests to be involved in particular cases. Ms WARNER: I think the member opposite does not understand the situation. It is not vague. The process has been used in other places. The Act is quite clear about the purpose of the tribunal, who may be appointed to it and the appropriate responsibilities and qualifications of those people. I cannot see why the honourable member opposite thinks that that is in any way vague. Mr SLACK: I will make this point very quickly. Why I am saying it is vague is that the Bill states— "(1) The members of the Tribunal are to be appointed by the Governor in Council. (2) The Chairpersons is to be appointed on a full-time basis, and the Deputy Chairpersons and other members are to be appointed on a part-time basis." In the Minister's second-reading speech, she said that the members of the tribunal are to be appointed by the chairman. If that is so, it would give the chairman enormous powers. Ms WARNER: I have already explained that. Clause 8.02, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8.03 to 9.01, as read, agreed to. Clause 9.02— Ms WARNER (1.34 a.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 58, omit line 8 and insert— 'the proposed route; and Legislative Assembly 8298 30 May 1991

(c) they have subsequently given the Aboriginal people notice of not less than one month of their intention to enter into the agreement.' " This amendment is consequent upon previous amendments. Amendment agreed to. Clause 9.02, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9.03 to 9.10, as read, agreed to. Preamble— Mr SLACK (1.36 a.m.): As I indicated during the debate in the House, I did not support the inclusion of the Preamble. It is not that the Opposition has any question about the Minister's intentions to establish that the Aboriginal people were here, that they were the first inhabitants of this continent. We have no argument with any of the paragraphs in the Preamble. We cannot understand why it has been included. We are dealing with an Act, which is a legal document. We are concerned about the Preamble, particularly paragraph (8), which states— "The Parliament is satisfied that Aboriginal interests and responsibilities in relation to land have not been adequately and appropriately recognised by the law and this has contributed to a general failure of previous policies in relation to Aboriginal people." We are very concerned about the implications of that paragraph in the Preamble to be passed by this Parliament. I know the Minister has said that if there is any ambiguity in the Bill, reference can be made back to the Preamble, but the fact remains that those terms are creating a precedent that can be used in the future by courts in the determination of land claims within Queensland. I also refer to paragraph (10), which states— "It is, therefore, the intention of the Parliament to make provision, by the special measures enacted by this Act, for the adequate and appropriate recognition of the interests and responsibilities of Aboriginal people in relation to land and thereby to foster the capacity for self- development, and the self-reliance and cultural integrity, of the Aboriginal people of Queensland." That in itself, read literally, indicates that is the end of the matter. I can see some conflict in that. I have no problem at all with the statement that land is of spiritual, social, historical, cultural and economic importance to Aboriginal people. I recognise that. I recognise that, before European settlement, land in what is now the State of Queensland had been occupied, used and enjoyed since time immemorial by Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. I also recognise that some Aboriginal people have maintained their ancestors' traditional affiliation with particular areas of land; that some Aboriginal people have a historical association with particular areas of land; and that some Aboriginal people have a particular requirement for land. The Opposition has reservations about the legal implications of paragraph (8). In the Minister's reply at the second-reading stage, she referred to my being racist and my having made a statement about Aboriginal people being in a cultural void. I stand by that statement. I was referring particularly to the younger generation who no longer have the links with the older traditions, or who have not fitted into the communities in general. That is not casting any slur on the Aboriginal people. That was not the intention of the statement. As I see it, it is merely stating a fact. That is not denying that Aboriginal people have a heritage and culture of which they are very proud. In the old cultures, they had very strong disciplines, etc. That is not evident in some of the young people Like many other members of this Chamber, I have been with Aboriginal people. I have worked with them. I have very good friends who are Aboriginal. Not for one minute would I try to denigrate their culture or the strength of that culture. By the same token, we must be realistic and accept that, when I said that some Aboriginal people are in a cultural void, it was not meant in a denigrating way. None of us denies that. Legislative Assembly 8299 30 May 1991

None of us denies the principles of which the Minister speaks in this legislation—at least, not all of them. However, we in the Opposition are worried about the legal implications and the necessity for these provisions to be in the legislation. We recognise that there were problems in the development of Australia, and in my speech during the second-reading debate I referred to them. I spoke about matters that cannot be redressed. I said also that this generation does not have to take the blame or be guilty for those things about which people may object and about which Aboriginal people may feel hurt. The Opposition does not support the Preamble. Although I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue, I wish to indicate that the Opposition does not support the Preamble. Mr FOLEY: The honourable member for Burnett raised a question as to the legal implications of the Preamble. One important reason for having the Preamble is to correct an error, a serious legal error which has poisoned the reasoning of the courts for over a century. That error was made by the Privy Council in the case of Cooper v. Stewart, to which I referred earlier. That error is largely cured by the provisions of the Preamble insofar as it makes it plain that before European settlement, land in this State of Queensland was occupied, used and enjoyed since time immemorial by Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. That lays some historical framework against a background where the legal doctrine had been the doctrine of terra nullius, that is to say, land that was practically uninhabited at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the colonial power. In the eighteenth century, the view was held in international law that settlement of a colony was a good root of title. Indeed, that was contrasted with conquest. As a result, Australia fell into a legal void in which there was no recognition—at least no express recognition—given by the Privy Council to the great tradition of the Aboriginal and Islander laws. This Preamble corrects that profound error. It also deals with the misunderstanding that is commonly advanced as to the confusion between issues of land rights and issues of apartheid that were described by the honourable member for Carnarvon in the course of his contribution earlier tonight. Paragraph (9) of the Preamble makes it plain that the Parliament is satisfied that special measures need to be taken for the purpose of securing adequate advancement of the interests and responsibilities of Aboriginal people in Queensland and to rectify the consequences of past injustices. Simply put, it means a recognition that what this is about is land rights and not apartheid. The High Court of Australia in Gerhardy v. Brown, a leading decision in 1985 delivered through Justice Brennan, expressed it this way: the difference between land rights and apartheid is the difference between a home and a prison. Mr HOBBS: I believe that the Preamble is a very important part of this Bill. With the passing of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill earlier this week, this Preamble is placed in a position in which future interpretations of the Act can be ascertained from this Preamble. The member for Yeronga has made it quite clear that this Preamble is about changing the tenure system in Queensland. It exposes some major complications that should be dealt with by a different Bill and a totally different aspect. The provisions in the Preamble are not dissimilar to the submissions made by the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to the Fitzgerald inquiry into Fraser Island, which asked for pre-existing title. This is what the Preamble can be interpreted as meaning. In common with the shadow Minister, the member for Burnett, I do not want to be seen as one who wants to segregate the races. I have a lot of respect for the majority of all people in Queensland, including Aboriginal people. I have some very good friends who are Aboriginals. I work side by side with them. We must consider seriously what is happening here. The member for Yeronga stated that the Preamble is correcting an error. It is really a matter of full debate as to whether or not it is correcting an error. If the honourable member wants to change the land tenure system entirely across-the-board, the issue should be debated in a forum in which it can be discussed fully, and not snuck in by the back door. Mr Bredhauer: We stuck it right up front. Legislative Assembly 8300 30 May 1991

Mr HOBBS: There is no doubt that the Government certainly has done that. This certainly ties in very well with the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act. It has been stated that some Aboriginal people have a requirement for land to ensure their economic and cultural viability. God damn it! Do whites not have that same right? Two wrongs do not make a right. The Government is posturing, saying that this is great and that it gives one a nice, warm inner glow. That is all very well, but at the end of the day we do not want to dispossess everybody, or they will soon be off side. Pre-existing title must be considered in the full context of what can happen. The Mabo case bases its premise on pre-existing title. Although that relates to the Torres Strait, that could eventually affect the mainland. At the end of the day, if an Aboriginal person were able to prove that his family lived in the Parliament House area, the Botanic Gardens or King George Square, it would not be up to this Parliament or the Premier of the day—whichever party might be in power—to deny that person that land. I ask honourable members to think about the chaos that would be associated with that. We must consider this issue seriously. It is possible that the end result would be that a treaty would have to be drawn up. Mr Foley: What a splendid idea. Mr HOBBS: That is about right. That is probably what the member has in mind. The Preamble should be taken out of the Bill. As the Opposition spokesman on Land Management, I see it as a threat to the present system. Although I recognise the need for Aboriginal people to have as much self- esteem and assistance—— Mr Foley: Something else. Mr HOBBS: That is right. I am trying to say that we want to assist anyone who is underprivileged in any form. I am happy to do that. This is probably the most serious part of the whole Bill. Ms WARNER: I have already spoken about the Preamble, and I do not intend to repeat my comments. The Acts Interpretation Amendment Act, which was passed this week, makes absolutely no change to the legal status of preambles. Mr SLACK: I appreciate the advice given to the Parliament by the learned gentleman from Yeronga. However, he has made me more nervous. He has not allayed any of my fears. Mr Foley: Good. Mr SLACK: All right. The problem is that, although the intentions of this Government may be good, the legal implications could be far reaching. Mr Foley: Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Mr SLACK: What the Government is saying is acknowledging that. If it allows the legislation to be passed, it could well lay this State open to the types of claims that have been made in the Northern Territory and which the Opposition rejects emphatically. If the Government is going to alter the basis upon which land can be claimed on the premise that what happened in the Privy Council years ago was incorrect, the actions of this Parliament could impact upon court decisions from now on. That could alter the whole basis upon which land could be claimed by the Aboriginal people. It would be a worry if no check were made on that claim. There would be tremendous division within society because of that. The Opposition has no choice other than to reject the Preamble on those grounds. Preamble, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Legislative Assembly 8301 30 May 1991

Third Reading Hon. A. M. WARNER (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs) (1.53 a.m.), by leave: I move— "That the Bill be now read a third time." Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 44 NOES, 30 Resolved in the affirmative. ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY; PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Sessional Order Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (1.57 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That pursuant to Standing Order No. 26, the House will meet for the despatch of business, in addition to the days agreed to pursuant to the Sessional Order of 3 October 1990, at 10 a.m. on Friday, 31 May 1991, on which day Government business shall take precedence of all other business." Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 1.58 a.m. (Friday).