hansard 30 may 1991 - queensland parliament...legislative assembly 8144 30 may 1991 note: there...

Legislative Assembly 8144 30 May 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printedHansard , 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 1988-1990Rural Training Schools Act 1965-1990 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act

1982-1989Supreme Court Act of 1921Industrial Development Act 1963-1987

Regulations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989-1990By-laws under the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1979-1990Proclamation 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 statementis to set the record straight on the state of business investment in Queensland. The latest QueenslandEconomic Review clearly demonstrates that Queensland's share of business investment in Australiahas grown steadily over the past year or so and the investment outlook is likely to be less recessed inQueensland than in other States. Treasury figures show that Queensland's share of businessinvestment 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 the1990s", saying we "will lead Australia out of this recession". Rider Hunt quotes this State's excellentfinancial management as one of the reasons for that.

I acknowledge that business confidence remains fragile, but the deliberate disinformation beingspread by members of the Opposition can serve no good. The people of Queensland should examinetheir motives. It seems they are endeavouring to talk the economy down because they see someshort-term political benefits to themselves in so doing. In a statement issued last week, the OppositionLeader 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


not have to be concerned about the state of negotiations or the confidentiality and sensitivity thatobviously attaches to a good deal of the work involved in securing a major project. Within those sorts ofconstraints, 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 tolearn that the Yabulu nickel refinery at Townsville is still operating. More than that, it is operating at fullcapacity, making a profit, and, together with the mine at Greenvale, is providing over 900 people withfull employment. The transition to imported ore is already well under way. Even so, the Governmentacknowledges that better port facilities are required to enable increased imports in the future. TheTownsville Port Authority has commissioned consultants to report on the best way to achieve thatobjective.

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 railfreight contract with MIM, set up a queue a mile long of other companies seeking similar specialconcessions, seriously eroded the State's revenue base, and still not have solved MIM's problem atCollinsville. Recent announcements have made it quite clear that the main issue is between MIM andits bankers. In that context, the commercial sensitivities should be obvious—even to theOpposition—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 theQueensland Government stands ready to play its part, within the bounds of economic responsibility, tokeep it that way.Export coal freight rates

We are getting plenty of advice from the Opposition about the need to reduce export coal railfreight rates, replacing them, I presume, with higher taxes or reduced services for ordinaryQueenslanders. What short memories the Opposition has. Given its history, the rail freight policy shouldbe a bipartisan one. However, let me say this: despite all the cries of anguish about rail freight rates, noQueensland export mine closed throughout the coal depression of the mid 1980s. Indeed, the flexibilityof the system is shown by the fact that, since 1984, rail freight concessions provided to the Queenslandindustry have cost over $600m.

Despite the unfavourable market and economy, two new mines—Gordonstone and JellinbahEast—were committed in Queensland last year, and last week's Queensland Economic Review showsthat Queensland's coal output in the latest half-year grew at an annual rate of 7.9 per cent. Thiscompares with a decrease of 1.3 per cent for the rest of Australia. With more new mines in closeprospect, Queensland's lead in coal production is expected to continue to increase--without us havingto forfeit our right to a fair return.Gladstone Power Station

The Opposition claims that the Goss Government has "blown" Comalco's expansion plans foraluminium smelting by not consummating the sale of the Gladstone Power Station. To be frank, I mustsay 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 ideologicalmatter for either side, but a hard commercial deal. Comalco understands this, and our relations with itare strong.


Let me provide the Leader of the Opposition with a quick economics lesson. If we sell the powerstation for less than it is worth and build replacement generation capacity at today's higher costs, thatwill 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 fundthe construction of the pipeline from the south-west gas fields to Mount Isa. This offer has been on thetable 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 andtimetable. Meanwhile, the south-west Queensland gas fields are proceeding towards a commitment onthe basis of other markets.

The Goss Government is diligently working behind the scenes to secure and promote majorprojects in Queensland. Unlike the previous Government, it does not announce projects until they areready for commitment. As I have said previously, phantom projects create phantom jobs. While I havethe opportunity, let me make a comment on the crane mentality that so transfixes the Opposition. It isthe economics of symbolism. Major projects are important, but at any time a particular market can onlyassimilate a small number of them. In times of soft demand, existing producers have a hard-enoughtime 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, theGovernment 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 Governmentcan do, especially in a recession, is get the financial management right—keep taxes down, balance theBudget, 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 RacingHon. 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 inQueensland——

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.


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 inJapan was overwhelmingly positive. This augurs well for the continued prosperity of the Queenslandtourism industry. I seek leave to table my report, which summarises the meetings attended by me andby 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 togetherafter months of consultation with business and industry throughout Queensland. While the overallresponsible for the policy rests with my colleague the Honourable Minister for Administrative Services, Ihave particular responsibility for the code of practice applying to business and industry development. Amajor beneficiary of the State purchasing policy will be small business, particularly businesses in variousregions. Small business accounts for the majority of private sector employment in this State and isparticularly 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 economicequation, seminars will be conducted throughout the State to inform suppliers of the opportunities thatexist to do business with the Government. There will also be a greater emphasis on training to ensurethat 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 ofbuying locally made goods and services and to dealing with local businesses.

A State Purchasing Council, comprising private-sector business and industry associations and theQueensland Small Business Corporation, will monitor adherence to this and other requirements. Inshort, this new State purchasing policy continues the Goss Government's efforts to support business inQueensland.


MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Absence of Ministers During Question-time

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.15 a.m.), by leave: TheDeputy Premier will be absent from question-time. He is opening the Local Government Associationconference 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 withrepresentatives of marine and port authorities and commercial tour operators on Fraser Island.

PRIVILEGELand 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 impactedon the precincts of this House. If demonstrators had gained entry to the Parliament, it had the potentialof impacting on the actual work of members themselves. My matter of privilege is the failure to ensurethat directions were in place, in adequate time, to enable action to be taken to protect not only theAustralian and Queensland flags at their mastheads but also parliamentary property, which wasdamaged in the ruckus that ensued. In the event of further demonstrations today, I seek an assurancefrom you, Mr Speaker, that adequate arrangements have been made to protect the Australian andQueensland 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 amotion without notice condemning the Government.

Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided—AYES, 33NOES, 47

Resolved in the negative.


QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE1 .

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 wasprovided to the Parliament in September 1990 and will again be provided this year. However, inaddition to that, in line with the Government's commitment to greater accountability, and in contrast withthe practice of previous National Party and Liberal Party Ministers, individual Ministers of thisGovernment are required to report to the Parliament in detail upon returning from each overseas trip onthe nature and purpose of that trip.2 .

Rural Health Division, Health DepartmentMrs 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 specificidentity, enhanced staff resources and funding for program initiatives. The classification of the directorposition 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 takenthe view that the best possible person should fill the position of director, that it should not be on thebasis 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 thearea of rural health policy will include both men and women. At this stage of program development inthe rural health area, six permanent positions will be established in the central office. Two furtherpositions are being funded from a research grant that the division has been successful in obtainingfrom a highly competitive national field.

(3) The Queensland Health Council is my peak advisory group. The rural health representative onthe council will be the chairman of the Rural Policy Advisory Committee, a group constituted under theHealth Council with a brief to provide advice on the means to promote, maintain and improve the healthand well-being of all people in rural Queensland. The chairman will be Dr Peter Livingstone, Director of the Post Graduate MedicalEducation 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 committeein the near future. However, I can assure honourable members that the membership will includerepresentation from the diverse organisations and areas of interest involved in health care for rural andisolated Queenslanders.


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 regardingretrenchments or redundancies in the Agricultural Branch of my department, I advise as follows. TheAgricultural Branch is part of the Agricultural Division of the Agricultural Production Group of theDepartment of Primary Industries. Because of the changed emphasis on programs within thedepartment by the Goss Labor Government, late last year all employees who were likely to be affectedwere offered the opportunity of retraining, redeployment and/or voluntary redundancy with anassociated salary package.

To date, 11 officers of the Agricultural Branch who sought voluntary redundancy have been offereda package. Three are at Toowoomba, three are at Warwick, two are at Gatton, and one is at each ofKingaroy, Biloela and Beaudesert. The programs with which they were associated cover a wide range ofactivities within the department. Some of those programs have now run their course, others havebecome more involved with the private sector, and others are of very low priority. Those peoplevoluntarily 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 todetermine future priorities.4 .

Swine DiseaseMr PERRETT asked the Minister for Primary Industries—

"With reference to the frightening speed of mystery swine disease which has caused suchhuge losses in the North American pig meat industry and which has now begun doing the same inEurope and to the fact that Australians consume a lot of manufactured pig meat imported mainlyfrom 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 theinterest 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.


Mr CASEY: I am answering the question, Mr Speaker, because it is very informative forhonourable 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 personalabuse. 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, thesecond 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 himto 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 theUnites States of America last year. Officers of my department have been in contact with theirCommonwealth Government counterparts and have been advised that the situation is under closersurveillance. Pig meats are only permitted to enter Australia from Continental Europe and the USAprovided that they are fully cooked, and, given the present distribution of the condition, this isconsidered to provide full safeguards for the Australian industry. However, should there be evidence ofthe disease establishing in Canada, present policy permitting the importation of frozen, uncooked pigmeats from that country would need to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I understand that a greatdeal of effort is going into the identification of the cause of the condition, which is believed to be aninfectious agent.5 .

Public Forum, Law Reform CommissionMr 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 apublic forum entitled "Looking after the needs of the disabled". The aim of the exercise was essentiallyto gather information from the people best qualified to identify the problems, and suggest solutions. Tothis end, the agenda


was circulated among disabled people, their carers and interested groups who play a role in providingcare for people with disabilities. More than 300 persons registered an interest, and an overflow crowdattended. The forum was a great success. It gave the members of the Law Reform Commission, whowill be making recommendations that will be tabled in this House, the opportunity to learn first-hand ofthe problems presented by the current law. In answer to the second part of the question—whether ornot 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 Commissionhas been responsible for convening. That does not necessarily reflect anything at all about the LawReform Commission. Given that the first forum was such a success, it is my expectation that they will becontinued, 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 theState's Chief Justice, who found it necessary to complain publicly about the Government's tardinessand inaction in appointing three new Supreme Court judges. I ask: in view of Mr Justice Macrossan'sindication that the Government's failure to provide promised resources has prejudiced the ability ofjudges to discharge their public duty, does the Premier concede that this represents an intolerablesituation for Queensland's Supreme Court, and will he now intervene to end the tardiness exhibited byboth the Justice Minister and the Attorney-General to ensure that this deplorable situation is urgentlyovercome?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because it is a matterabout which the whole community should be concerned. I have been particularly concerned about thissince about January or February of this year, when I was approached by the Bar Association and theLaw Society, which expressed their concern about the administration of the court system in this Stateand the associated issue of the provision of resources. Before I proceed to address the complaints andthe concerns of the profession, let me say clearly what the Government is prepared to do to addressthis 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, theAttorney-General and me. Our position is basically this: firstly, the Government is prepared to providethree additional judges, if in fact they are needed. The qualifying clause on that is simply that we do notknow if those extra judicial resources are needed at this time, because the Justice Department hasbeen unable to obtain access to facts and figures from the court. I stress our preparedness to providethe additional judges if they are needed.

Secondly—this has not previously been made public—the Government has privately offered andnow publicly offers three acting judges to help clear the current backlog. Thirdly, once that backlog iscleared, the Government will hopefully be in a position to assess the need for resources, given that alarge part of the Supreme Court's work has been transferred to the District Court jurisdiction. I amadvised by the Justice Department that, since much of the Supreme Court's workload was transferredto 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 byway of an additional resource to help the Chief Justice and the court solve the current administrationproblems. Fifthly, the Government believes that it is vital that the court introduce a system ofprofessional case management to help overcome some of the current problems. This is a matter inwhich 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


Law Society respectively. They had a series of quite serious concerns about the administration of thecourts. I want to refer to one example, and one example only. It is a delicate matter, but I think ithighlights the sort of problem that exists. I do so because I think the public has a right to know. Inaddition, quite frankly, I am somewhat dismayed and disappointed that a Chief Justice anywhere in thiscountry 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 superiorjurisdiction. 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 ofthe 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 ifthere is to be criticism of a judge, particularly the Chief Justice, it must be by way of resolution of theHouse 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 amlistening 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 andsupport that convention but I want to stress that the change in Government led to a general change inpolicy 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 bythe Premier prior to the interjection of the Government Deputy Whip. Prior to the interjection, thePremier was quite clearly criticising the Chief Justice of Queensland for having taken the action to bringabout publicity to matters that he could not raise with the Government. If that was not criticism, my earsjust were not listening to what was being said. The Premier was clearly criticising the Chief Justice ofQueensland. 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 totalbreach 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 youaccept 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, theAttorney-General and me. As for the matters raised by the Opposition quite deliberately to try to dragthe Government into controversy—they


are not relevant to this debate and this matter should not be seen as any personal or professionalreflection 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 fromyour 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 theadministration of the courts—not in the exercise of judicial functions, I stress, but in the administration ofthe courts—that highlights the Government's concern. I am sure that it is also the concern of the ChiefJustice. It is a concern that we share. It relates to the case of Foxley v. Proserpine Shire RiverImprovement Trust and others. I propose to refer briefly to a memorandum provided to me by theMinister 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 tocorrect in cooperation with the Chief Justice and through the introduction of a system of casemanagement.

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 matterinvolves a couple from north Queensland who were emotionally and financially crushed by thatparticular case. It is a delicate matter, so I will read only part of the memorandum. It refers to a reportprovided 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 toevents which go back to 1974. For a variety of reasons, the case dragged on. The plaintiffs hadthree 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 andthis 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 trialcommencing on the following Monday. When the case came before the court on that followingMonday, the parties were advised that the case could not proceed, because it might take longer thanthe three weeks that were allocated. It was indicated clearly by the parties that they were prepared toaccept the three-week hearing and to come back the following year when the matter could be furtherheard when court time was available. They were there with all their counsel and their witnesses, andthey 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 courtthat they would not get that three-week hearing. The parties were sent away, emotionally and financiallycrushed, and were forced to settle the case on very disadvantageous terms. As I said, I have read onlyparts of this document.

Mr Harper: Selective extracts.


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 fora trial."

There they were, with three weeks set aside, all the lawyers and witnesses were there, yet althoughthree weeks were allocated for their case, the court turned them away. This Government will not toleratea situation such as that. We wish to work together with the Supreme Court bench to correct thosecircumstances so that we do not see a repeat of a case similar to that of Foxlee v. The Proserpine ShireRiver Improvement Trust and Others. I hope that all honourable members would respect that thisGovernment 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 areneeded. We have asked for facts and figures in relation to the courts' workload. In the interim, we areprepared 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 PoliciesMr 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, inlast weekend's Sunday Mail to the effect that this Labor Government has lost its way in its pursuit ofpolicies seeking the political middle ground. I ask: in view of this Government's broken policy on landrights and its failure to deliver the party's policy for abortion on demand, does the Minister now admitthat Mr Hampson's comments were spot on? What action does the Minister intend to take to deliverpromised ALP policies?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is not relevant to the Minister's portfolio. It is up to theMinister 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 thisafternoon during the debate on land rights. Let me say that the question is a fairly sorry indication thatthe Leader of the Opposition has never taken part in any kind of reasonable debate on the issue ofland 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 theOpposition has never made any sense on the subject of land rights. As I said, so that he may learnabout and understand this issue, I refer him to the debate that will occur today in this House.

State Government Taxation PoliciesMr 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?


Mr De LACY: This is an important issue. I note that, in this morning's press, the Premier ofTasmania has said that, if Tasmania does not get what it wants out of the Premiers Conference, it willbe raising taxes. I am aware of some stirrings amongst Premiers throughout Australia to try to get somecooperation on the issue of raising taxes. I refer honourable members to last year's PremiersConference, when Premiers throughout Australia got together and said, "Let's harmonise tax ratesthroughout Australia." What they really meant by "harmonise" was to increase tax rates throughoutAustralia to the highest level possible. The running was taken by Mr Nick Greiner, the Premier of NewSouth Wales. I believe that the people of that State delivered to him a message that they do not wanthigh taxes and that Governments must be able to deliver services in a more cost-efficient way. I givethe honourable member an assurance that the Queensland Government will not be party to any plan toincrease 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 noFID tax. This Government will not increase payroll tax to the levels that prevail in other States ofAustralia.

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 tothink that, if Queensland gets what it is asking for from the Commonwealth Government, it will be aneasy Budget. Everybody knows that we are in a recession; that our own source revenue is down, as it isdown throughout Australia; and that we are committed to a number of national benchmark salarydecisions 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. Lastyear, 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 ofQueensland—that it will not increase taxes, and it will not be increasing taxes.However, what we willneed 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 everytime that we do it. However, when the Government does not have enough money to go around, it hasonly a couple of options. It can increase taxes, but that is out. We do not believe that that is the way togo. The Government can cut services or deliver them more efficiently. The Goss Government iscommitted to the more efficient delivery of services, and that is what can be expected from us.

Land Rights Demonstration outside Parliament HouseMr 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 aconfrontation at Parliament House, strongly implying that police action was unwarranted andunprovoked? Will he inform the House of the circumstances in which police apprehended and arresteda number of people who were involved in yesterday's demonstration?


Mr MACKENROTH: Yes, I did see that report. I thought that to say that the police had chargedthe demonstrators outside Parliament House yesterday was sensationalism at its best. The onlycharges that were made concerned the 10 people who were arrested. Yesterday, I believed that somepeople went over the top when they destroyed the gate and the pillar that held up the gate outsideParliament House. As a result of that, I understand that the Speaker spoke to the police, whorequested those people to remove themselves from the parliamentary precincts and pointed out that, ifthey did not do so, the police would arrest them. That is what happened. Yesterday, there was nocharging in any sense by the police at any demonstrators or any people at Parliament House. I placeon record my appreciation of the remarkable restraint that the police showed here last Thursday andonce again yesterday. They acted in an excellent manner. It shows what can happen with peopledemonstrating and the police being there in a law-enforcing role and not in the role of being used aspolitical tools, as they were in the past. I also point out that the police cannot tolerate people who breakthe law in the way that the law was broken yesterday. That applies not only in relation to that incidentyesterday, but also in relation to any incidents that occur in Queensland. Police will allow people thedemocratic right to demonstrate, but they will not allow them to break the law. If they do, they willchoose to do that and will face the consequences.

Closure of Woodford PrisonMr 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 theGovernment plan to give the people of Woodford in light of the Government's decision to close downthe Woodford prison without warning?

Mr W. K. GOSS: There has been no consideration of that matter up to the present time. Iunderstand that, in the near future, the local member will bring forward a deputation of people todiscuss with the relevant Minister a range of the general issues associated with the matter. Thosematters can be discussed there. I understand that the Minister is prepared to entertain any particularsuggestions that the community may have. Ultimately, however, it must be understood that the prisonsystem in this State is not run as an industry or an economic activity to prop up this community or thatcommunity. Although there may be some adverse consequences, I am sure that the people ofWoodford and all of the people of Queensland expect this Government, in the area of prisons, to dotwo things. They expect us to follow through on the Kennedy reforms that were initiated by the previousGovernment and in respect of which substantial extra funding was provided to the prison system by theprevious Government. That has been continued. At the same time, the people of Woodford and thepeople of Queensland would expect the Government to run the prison system as efficiently and as costeffectively as possible. The facts are that there are a substantial number of vacancies in our prisonsystem and we need to close one facility to save costs. I am advised by the Minister that we are lookingat 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) BillMr 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 whetherassistance was sought by any major employer associations to validate any of their past operations? Inthe 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 havemade it clear that the object of the Bill is clearly to protect the integrity of the State industrial relationssystem. I say to the honourable member who asked the question that that certainly is reflected in theBill. The next part of the question that I


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 muchinvolved with the manufacturing sector in this State—representatives of those organisations consultedwith senior officers of my department regarding their concerns over the position in which theirorganisations found themselves without the legislative protection that will be provided by the Act whichwill result from the Bill that was passed through the House last night. In other words, both of thosemajor employer organisations are supportive of the Government's actions and they would not besupportive 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 theConfederation of Industry held discussions about the proposed legislation with members from both theNational Party and Liberal Party. I have no concerns about it, but it was done without any reference tome. I know that he went to great lengths to show how essential that legislation is for the protection ofour State industrial system, which is so important to this State's future economy. I know that he briefedMr Santoro. He certainly spoke to Mr Beanland and Mr Harper. Whether or not those people breachedthat confidentiality——

Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. I find the imputation made by the Honourable Ministerpersonally 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 confidentialbriefing of either the National Party or the Liberal Party after their performance last night and again thismorning.

Mr HARPER: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is obviously endeavouring to put pressure onother 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 theydisplayed 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 thisissue, Mr Bubb of the confederation will be issuing a major media release today about the wholematter. It will certainly make interesting reading. I think perhaps the Metal Trades Industry Associationand other major employer organisations will do the same.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the Minister for his most erudite answer.Opposition members interjected.


Mr PALASZCZUK: If Opposition members had not been on strike last night, they would haveheard 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 orotherwise of rumours concerning the closure of country hospitals being circulated in many parts of ruralQueensland by members of the Opposition ?

Mr McELLIGOTT: I certainly endorse the honourable member's comment. It is a sad indictmentof members opposite that they would stoop so low as to spread fear and concern in their electorates bysuggesting that there will be some sort of downgrading in the level of health services in theirelectorates. I have already spoken in this place about the shocking and irresponsible behaviour of themember for Callide in respect of the Cairns Hospital and in the last several days I have heard similarstories coming out of Gympie and Kilcoy. Today, I want to give an example of what I regard as themost irresponsible piece of journalism and the most irresponsible action on the part of a member of thisAssembly that I have encountered during my time in this House.

A headline in the Goondiwindi Argus states "Hospital services slashed!" Members would agree thatthe good people of Goondiwindi and district are entitled to have some fears and concerns having readsuch a headline in their local publication. They are also entitled to believe that some sort of decisionhas been made by the Government or by me as Minister to actually reduce services at their localhospital. When one reads the text of this article, the source of this outlandish statement is the infantilemember 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 newregime.

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 thisParliament, that it is understandable that he would cast around for an example to follow. It is a greattragedy that he has obviously chosen the example of


the member for Flinders, who, as all honourable members would know, has spread lies and untruthsabout railway positions throughout the State. The member for Carnarvon is doing exactly the same inrelation to hospital services in his electorate. Unfortunately, other members opposite are following hislead. It is disgusting, and it is a disgrace.

Premier's Comments on Chief JusticeMr 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 memberfor Archerfield. I ask: will he now do the decent thing and apologise on behalf of himself and hiscolleagues 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 nopersonal reflection on the Chief Justice. I made it plain that any change in Government policy in respectof imperial honours is a question of Government policy generally and should not be seen as a reflectionon the Chief Justice. I object in the most strenuous terms to the assertion made by the member forSurfers 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 publiccommitment to work with the Chief Justice and the courts' administrators to improve the situation andprovide the resources that are necessary. Ultimately, permanent resources will be provided, but, in theinterim, until the backlog is cleared, acting justices will be appointed. In addition, the Government willprovide a professional court administrator as an extra resource to assist the Chief Justice and the courtsto overcome administrative problems that are quite clear. I refer again to one paragraph of thememorandum 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, on14 November. It was confirmed by the court, and the master of the Supreme Court sought assurancesfrom the parties that there was no impediment to their trial commencing the following Monday. They allturned up, but the court turned them away. I again quote from the deputy director-general, whostated—

"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 thatinformation. 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 Courtas an important institution in this State. It does not just have this Government's support in terms of theprovision of resources and a preparedness to provide extra resources, but it also has our respect. Werespect 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 extentthat I am dismayed by any public statements that have been made, I point out that I am simplyreflecting a well-known convention—well known and understood in this Parliament and by the bench.


Mr BORBIDGE: It would be interesting if the Premier repeated the comments about the ChiefJustice outside Parliament.

Validation of Illegal Union ActionMr 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 willnot be used to validate any illegal action which may arise out of the recommendations of MarshallCooke, 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, veryimportant industrial issue. As I indicated previously, that legislation is very important to the protection ofthe State industrial system and the economy of this State. If the honourable member wants to shirk hisresponsibility——

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 couldnot understand what it was all about.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The question was specifically worded so that even theMinister could say "Yes" or "No". He is now going into a debate that took place last night. I challengehim 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 wereelected to do, they would have heard the answer to the question that has just been asked by themember 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 BayMr 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 Governmentat Rosslyn Bay on the Capricorn Coast has recently been taken over by private enterprise. I ask: will headvise the House of the reasons why the take-over was supported by his department? What will thismean to students living on the Capricorn Coast who want to be trained to work in the hospitalityindustry?

Mr WARBURTON: The Rosslyn Bay TAFE facility came into existence as the result of a March1989 Cabinet decision—that might bring back memories for some people--which made available aspecial allocation of $200,000 for the leasing of facilities and the purchase of equipment for a TAFEfacility. The Cabinet decision resulted from


an oral submission by the then Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, Mr Lester, atthe March 1989 country Cabinet meeting. In 1990, I instructed my bureau to carry out a thoroughexamination of the viability of all the existing and proposed external campuses. Because of financiallosses incurred, the Rosslyn Bay facility was found not to meet the criteria of an efficient operation thatwould be expected by the public. The amount of capital sunk in the project to date and forecast to belost if the campus is maintained at present standards is in the vicinity of $300,000. That money will bemore effectively utilised in the existing TAFE structure. Let me conclude by saying that the facility hasconsistently run at a substantial financial loss. Obviously, not enough thought was given to the facilitywhen it was first established, but that is another story. The Rockhampton college of TAFE will be able toservice the same offerings with a far greater emphasis on live work training essential to the tourism andhospitality courses. Now that the people of the honourable member's electorate understand the trueposition, 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 SupremeCourt are reported to have rejected such a system. I ask: how can he, as the first law officer of theState, justify unwarranted Government interference in the court system, as has been suggested bySupreme Court judges? How can he justify the disintegration of the Supreme Court, a move that woulddestroy the traditional system of British justice and diminish civil liberties?

Mr WELLS: Pursuant to the Fitzgerald report, a division was established between the functions ofthe Minister for Justice and those of the Attorney-General. That division has been in place since thebeginning of this Parliament. Under that division, the Minister for Justice has had responsibility for theadministration of the courts. I do not usually retail wild rumours in the Parliament, but I heard a wildrumour—I do not know if there is anything in it—that the honourable member for Condamine was in factthe shadow Attorney-General. If that is so, it is surprising that he does not know what the job of theAttorney-General is and that it does not involve the administration of the courts and, therefore, does notrelate 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 beshadowing. For the benefit of the honourable member for Condamine, I point out that, this year, areview carried out by the Public Sector Management Commission of the Department of Justice and theDepartment of the Attorney-General confirmed the separation and the proposition that the Minister forJustice 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 tothe honourable member that the doctrine of the separation of powers refers to judges acting judicially; itdoes not refer to the question of the administration of courts, which is governed by an Act of thisParliament which is administered by the Minister for Justice. The honourable member for Condaminecannot grasp that difference. I do not know how the law is expounded on the banks of the Condamineand I do not know whether the honourable member's constituents would all subscribe to the doctrinesespoused by the honourable member, but I think that is very unlikely. The honourable member forCondamine ought to go back to his constituents and say to them, "Look, I don't understand thisdoctrine of the separation of powers any more than the former Premier Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersenunderstood it." He should say, "I don't understand this doctrine and I am not competent to be speakingon the subjects that I am speaking on." He should try to grasp who does what, who administers whatActs and what the doctrines are for which he is supposed to be responsible before he stands up in this


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

RelationsMr 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 Ministerwho has access to the unabridged reports written by Commissioner Cooke, reports that recommendthat 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 protectthose union officials and ALP members from prosecution. I ask: does the Attorney-General haveconcerns that the Minister for Employment has breached the proper conduct expected of a Minister ofthe Crown? As first law officer, will he intercede?

Mr WELLS: The answer to the question is "No". The unabridged reports to which the honourablemember refers relate to documents that were provided to the Director of Prosecutions subject to theadvice of the Solicitor-General, which was based on a High Court decision which said that in thesecircumstances specific recommendations relating to matters which need to be investigated, or which arerecommended to be investigated by the Director of Prosecutions, should not be made public andshould not be published in a public report but should be placed separately before the Director ofProsecutions. If the honourable member opposite had the faintest grasp of what he was doing, hewould understand that in these matters the Government acts on the advice of the Solicitor-General andthat 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 WynnumMr 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 concernedabout that area. Likewise, the Deputy Premier, the member for Lytton, Mr Burns, has been a verystrong advocate for the bay area and the Wynnum area, in particular the foreshore. Of course, someproblems 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 forEnvironment 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 theWynnum foreshore area to protect the mangroves. In Opposition, he undertook to do something aboutit. When Labor won Government, he pursued that project and got community service order peopleworking down there. They did a magnificent job. In some cases, in order to work around the tides, theywere starting at 6 o'clock in the morning. Those workers have done a tremendous job. In addition toconstructing that boardwalk, corrective services people have been actively engaged in helping torestore St Helena Island. There again, they have done a tremendous job in restoring part of ourheritage.

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 sothat they paid their debt to society. In addition to that debt being paid to society, the communitybenefits from the projects in which they are


involved, such as the Wynnum boardwalk. Last week, I answered a question regarding communityservice orders and their value to the community. When one puts a dollar value on the work being doneby community service order workers, one finds that it runs into many millions of dollars. One only needsto look around the community to see work being done at schools and in other public areas. The workthat is being undertaken is of tremendous benefit to the community. Obviously, the Corrective ServicesCommission has a policy of ensuring that non-violent offenders serve their sentences in thecommunity——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.PRIVILEGE

Interjection by Member for Archerfield about Chief JusticeMr 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 aninterjection, 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 thehonourable 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 thinkthat 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, 31NOES, 48Resolved 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 MrClive Bubb of the Queensland Confederation


of Industry. I have no intention of disclosing any facts of the short telephone conversation which I hadwith Mr Bubb, but I desire to place on record that nothing of that conversation adverse to the interestsof the Queensland Confederation of Industry was, or will be, disclosed by me either in debate orelsewhere.

PRIVILEGE Withdrawal of Interjection

Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (11.34 a.m.): I was unaware of the convention that a membercannot criticise a judge other than by substantive motion. Now that it has been drawn to my attention, Iaccept that the interjection was not in accordance with Standing Orders and I ask that the interjectionbe withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Standing Orders, just a convention, but I will accept thewithdrawal of that interjection.

ABORIGINAL LAND BILLSecond 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 andconfusion. The position is that in this Parliament quite some time ago the Premier indicated that therewould be a long and involved consultative process prior to the introduction of the legislation that we aredebating today, and that its introduction would be towards the end of this year. Yet, suddenly, we havethe legislation before us today. When I say "suddenly"—the Minister delivered her second-readingspeech at 1 o'clock in the morning a little over a week ago. If the debate had been brought onyesterday afternoon, that would have been not quite a week since the Bill was introduced. The Bill'sintroduction was clouded by an air of dissension. We have had marches out in the street. We have hadillegal behaviour on the part of people, which the Opposition cannot condone, and we attempted tomove in this House yesterday that that illegal behaviour be condemned and deplored. The legislation isnow being debated by this House, which is where the expectations of the Aboriginal community andIslander people have been raised by the actions and words of the Premier. At the beginning, I wouldlike to read to the House a letter which is addressed to "The Honourable W. K. Goss, LLB, MLA." Itstates—

"We are writing to express our grave concerns at the way in which your government hashandled the question of land rights for Queensland Aborigines. On 19th February 1991 at theDispute Resolution Conference in Brisbane you gave the following advice to a group of Aboriginalelders:

'. . . go back and talk among yourselves and work out what you want. Tell us how it would workin practice. Don't come here and ask me, a whiteman, to draw it up because you will turn aroundand accuse me of imposing a whiteman's solution. I'm not going to do that. If you want changesyou tell me what changes. We have land rights in Queensland now. It's called the Deed of Grant inTrust. 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, SenatorMargaret 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 aresupposed to benefit from it. This legislation is being put before us by the Minister for Aboriginal andIslander Affairs. Why is the Premier not in the House?


As he has had so much input into the formulation of the legislation, why is he not putting it forward? Orwas 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 oflegislation. In the light of that, I was very surprised to hear her say on the 7.30 Report, in response to aquestion from the interviewer, that the legislation before the House is not the last word in legislation andnot the last word on land rights. Surely we have the right to ask: is this the Government's policy? Is thisthe 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 whatshe 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 landrights, why was it rushed into the House? I can see the Minister protesting. If it is not the last word, Iwant to refer to a question that I asked the Premier on Tuesday, 28 May, in relation to consultancyfees, to whom they were paid and the costs that were involved. One part of the Premier's answer wasinteresting. 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. Ona number of occasions work did not finish until 2 a.m. and several weekends involved work from9 a.m. to past midnight on both Saturday and Sunday.

Estimates based on Departmental records and staff diaries indicate that there were at least198 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 anysane, sensible person that there was some reason why this legislation had to be introduced into theHouse 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 from9 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 staffworked beyond normal work hours on weekends". Yet the Minister says that I have a conspiratorialmind. The Premier gave an undertaking to this House and to the Aboriginal and Islander people thatthis legislation would not be introduced until the end of this year. He gave an undertaking that he andthe Minister would consult. The Minister has a copy of the letter from which I have just read and whichstated—

". . . 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. Theletter stated that they did not need to go any further, that the Government had made up its mind. Is itany wonder that the Aboriginal and Islander people are upset? Is it any wonder that many of them aremarching? Not for one minute do I condone any of the lawlessness that has occurred. But it is veryunfair of the Premier to try to distance himself from any responsibility for those marches. The Premiersaid to the Aboriginal and Islander people that they could put their case and that the Governmentwould listen to it. I ask the Minister: has she listened? I do not necessarily


believe that she supports this legislation. She is supporting it under protest. She is the Minister forAboriginal and Islander Affairs. Responsibility for this matter was taken out of her hands and given toKevin Rudd of the Cabinet Office. Before the House today is a compromise which means virtuallynothing. 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 thislegislation. I firmly believe that the reason for the rush is that, at the ALP conference next week, therewill be a bloodbath of ALP policy relative to Aboriginal and Islander affairs. This legislation negates thepolicy that the Labor Party took to the Aboriginal people before the last election and by which it gainedtheir 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 bythe Minister, the Premier and, incidentally, the honourable member for Yeronga, who will follow me inthis debate. I will be keen to see if he can explain what has come out of his Government's policies inthis legislation. As I said, it is a shameful attempt to honour commitments that they and many otherGovernment members gave to Aboriginal and Islander people before they were elected toGovernment.

The Opposition sees this legislation as nothing but a clever sleight of hand. It is a con job and afarce. Really, it amounts to tokenism. Consequently, the Opposition will not be supporting thelegislation. In saying that, the Opposition does not pretend to agree with or attempt to misleadAboriginal and Islander people into believing that it supports extensive land claims legislation, otherthan to correct what it sees as some inadequacies in the original DOGIT legislation. At least everyoneknows where the Opposition stands on many of the issues before the House today. People do notknow where the Minister stands. This is not the last word in legislation or on land rights. Why could theMinister not come up with the last word in a carefully prepared document that could be delivered beforethe end of the year, as the Minister promised? The Opposition has never pretended to be half-smartand clever by introducing measures which, in the best of terms, can be described only as Claytons landrights.

The Government speaks of giving control to the Aboriginal and Islander people, but, in effect, itretains control. It gazettes the vacant Crown land that is available for application to the tribunal. TheMinister appoints the trustees to oversee and manage the land. They are not elected representatives ofthe Aboriginal and Islander people. The Governor in Council appoints the tribunal. The Minister incharge of national parks and wildlife and his department determine the management plan for nationalparks. I ask the Minister to explain whether the Minister in charge of national parks or the Minister forFamily Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs is responsible for that management plan. Thatsection appears to me to be ambiguous. The relevant Minister then appoints the managementcommittee. The mining royalties that come back to Aboriginal and Islander people are determined andcontrolled by the Government. They are in name only, because that money can easily be offsetsomewhere else. The allocation of the talked-about 1.16 per cent vacant Crown land is a farce. Even ifit were granted in total—and surely land that is now vacant in the State must be of little commercialvalue, otherwise it would not be vacant—the Government will not incur the wrath of the voters byoffering land in towns or cities. What is the meaning of allowing for claims to be made on national parksand then, if granted, requiring the new owners immediately to lease the land back in perpetuity at apeppercorn rental to the National Parks and Wildlife Service? The Government has the hide to preparea paper to explain to the Aboriginal and Islander people how well they are doing. It is no wonder thatthe Minister or the Premier did not wish to go out last week and confront the marchers. The whole thingis a joke.

Mr Dollin: Can we hear your policy?


Mr SLACK: I am not ashamed of my policy. I am prepared to spell it out quite clearly. Even theuse of the term "inalienable freehold title" rings hollow. In the Oxford Dictionary, "inalienable" isdescribed as "not able to be taken away". Yet, under this legislation, land can be resumed—no veto onmining, etc. The Opposition does not dispute that, but Government members should hang their headsin shame over the hypocrisy of this legislation. It is little more than the DOGIT legislation over which theLabor Party, when in Opposition, was so quick to condemn the former National Party Government. Atleast we were honest about it. Our opponents were quick to condemn us over that legislation, whichintroduced deeds of grant in trust.

That pioneering legislation was to prove to be a significant step forward by the National Party inrecognising the special problems that confronted Aborigines and Islander people. A little under twomillion hectares were transferred into this title. That is not all the land that was available to Aboriginaland Islander people. The title refers to deeds of grant in trust "in fee simple". That title is just asinalienable as what this legislation proposes. Substantial areas of land throughout the State whereAboriginal and/or Islander communities had been established were always to be there for those peopleof Aboriginal or Islander descent who wished to reside within those communities. As many peoplewould have us believe, the tenure is not leasehold. Those people were given self-management andcontrol in the form of a community council system that is similar to our local authorities. In fact, greaterpowers and control were vested in the elected community council than in non-community shire andtown councils. But what is this Government about to do? Will it remove the elected representatives asthe trustees and replace them with non-elected trust members who are appointed by the Minister? Ifthis Government is giving land but keeping control, that is not giving land at all. Talk about paternalismon the part of the National Party! What will the Aboriginal people get? People who are responsible toand 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 Aboriginaland Islander people trusted the Labor Party. The Aboriginal people have seen an example of thatconsultative process. The Minister and her Government, which previously took the high ground, arecertainly not about to give away control. In fact, they seek more control than did the National Party. Myunderstanding is that the Aboriginal Consultative Council emphatically opposed this aspect, but thatview was disregarded. All that this will do is leave the way open for little pressure groups to lobby theMinister. I wish her well in sorting out all the problems that will evolve from this proposal. It is hard tounderstand the logic behind this move when an existing structure has already been accepted by theAboriginal people, and the clan influence was gradually being set aside. People were electing thepeople whom they wanted. Is the Minister saying that she does not trust the Aboriginal people to electtheir own representatives? All that this will do is throw those communities into total confusion and causeunnecessary division and resentment within them. It is obvious that this legislation is more restrictivethan that proposed by the National Party. In effect, it actually takes the control away from localcommunities.

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 theAboriginal 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 notabout to grant them, either, except in deeds of grant in trust areas where the National Party hadalready agreed to do so. I am not denying that there have been problems and that there will continueto be problems.


As honourable members are aware, the Public Accounts Committee has made a detailed andthorough investigation of community councils. I commend the work done by the chairman and his teamand concur entirely with the findings of that committee. It recognised the cultural difference that existedbetween whites and blacks, and the report was objective in its approach to coming to terms with thebasic disadvantages that that cultural difference imposed on Aboriginal and Islander people living withina twentieth century white society. However, I do not condone the taking away of the ability of Aboriginaland 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 courtjudgment, which dismissed the whole legal basis of land claims. From the judgment, which ran toalmost 400 pages, several points can be made. The first is that it was not an issue that the originalEuropean settlers in north America behaved badly. It is simply not possible to go back and reverse all ofthe wrongs that occurred in the long history of the world during the settlement and/or conquest of northAmerica, Australia and other areas. Interestingly, after hearing the lengthy testimony of hereditarychiefs as to the basis of their claims for title to the land and taking into account the oral history, thejudge dismissed much of that oral history as fiction.

That raises two questions in relation to the legislation before the House. One is that the Oppositiondoes not believe that we should inherit guilt for the actions of our forebears, nor do we believe that weshould be overly responsible for the cultural trait inherent in many Aborigines—I repeat "manyAborigines", not all—such as their lack of desire for and appreciation of material things or their inabilityto plan for the future. Secondly, the Opposition sees the role of the tribunal as a costly bureaucraticexercise purely to sort out the different applications from various Aboriginal and Islander groups for thegazetted vacant Crown land and the national park land. To us, the Canadian judge's decision merelyestablishes that American Indians, Aboriginal people, whites and politicians—including the member forBrisbane Central—are no different, as they will all be prone to fiction if it means personal gain or a gainfor 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 usedwhen 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 landis."

However, he went on to indicate that he would like to get some land added to his community. That wasa consistent response to my question. Right throughout the communities, I asked the question of thepeople to whom I spoke on a one-to-one basis. The other response was that land rights was not reallythe 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 expressionby the Parliament of being satisfied that Aboriginal interests and responsibilities in relation to land havenot been adequately and appropriately recognised by the law and that that has contributed to ageneral failure of previous policies in relation to Aboriginal people. In fact, we reject the whole Preambleand the necessity for it. Will the Minister explain to the House the reason for its inclusion and assure theParliament that it does not have any legal implications? If it does, it should have been clearly spelt outto the electorate before the election was held. With reference to section 8 of the Preamble—we see itmore as a situation in which many of the present generation of Aboriginal and Islander people are in acultural void. They appear to have lost their tribal codes and disciplines but still retain the culturaldifferences that make it so difficult for them to compete within modern twentieth century Australia. Ifone can imagine it, it would be as if a race from outer space, whose technology was 1 000 years aheadof ours and who outnumbered us by 50 to 1, landed and took over. How would we cope? Maybe, formany of us, the bottle would not be a bad way to go.


It must be accepted also that most of the Aboriginal people, or the descendants, are mainly ofmixed blood, are now urbanised and, although they may dream about it, would have little desire toreturn to their traditional land or life-style, even if they did know where it was. It reminds me of the timemany years ago in New York when I hired a cab with a negro driver. I asked him if he felt that he was asecond-rate citizen. His answer was, "Sure, I'm a second-rate citizen, but they can have that 'goingback to Ghana' stunt." It is neither practical nor realistic to believe that we can turn back the clock. Weare in the twentieth century and we are all faced with the pressures that evolve from that. ManyAborigines are coping and are a credit to their race, because it is extremely difficult to get up from anunderprivileged, deprived background and it is even more difficult if one is black. However, theOpposition does not believe that we do anybody a favour by simply giving. We do not believe that theproblems that Aboriginal people face can be solved simply by giving money or land. Where does itstop? 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 ofthe problems? Recently, in an editorial in a major newspaper in the Northern Territory, the observationwas made that, by the year 2000, 70 per cent of the land mass of the Northern Territory would beunder the control of 22 per cent of the population. Already in Queensland, we see reaction andresentment on the part of many people, particularly those who are struggling, who see benefitsavailable to Aboriginal children that are not available to their children—benefits that they believe theirchildren would use and that are sometimes squandered by Aboriginal children, or that they see asbeing squandered by Aboriginal children. If we attempt to set Aboriginal people further apart from othersections of the community, those divisions that are already present will only increase and it will be theAboriginal people who will suffer. That also raises the question of division between the Aboriginalpeople 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 wholerace into disrepute? The member for Brisbane Central need not shake his head, because they haverung and talked to me. It is a fact. Many Aborigines dissociated themselves from the people involved inthe march the other day. They support the reasons for the march, but they disown many of the peopleinvolved in the march and dissociate themselves from their behaviour. I do not believe that Aboriginalpeople 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 tothat one issue—the need for Aboriginal people to have an economic base from which they couldbecome self-sufficient.

They have often expressed to me the need for the provision of greater employment opportunitieswithin their communities. This Government made all sorts of promises, but this Bill does not addressthat issue. No wonder the Aboriginal people feel betrayed by it. The Opposition firmly believes thatAboriginal and Islander people are entitled to employment, education, health, housing and theopportunity to compete equally within


the community. We need appropriate policies to help Aboriginal and Islander people gain self-esteemand hope. I do not believe that this legislation provides a desirable way to achieve that aim. In apractical sense it is extremely difficult to determine who is entitled to what. This applies particularly to theargument as to who actually is an Aborigine. The accepted definition of an Aboriginal person appearsto be someone who claims to be Aboriginal and who is accepted as being Aboriginal by the Aboriginalcommunity itself. I ask: is this definition adequate? Surely a person carrying one-eighth or one-quarterAboriginal blood cannot be described as an Aboriginal person who has close cultural links to theAboriginal people.

Then there is the question of need. I note that the report handed down by the Public WorksCommittee makes the recommendation that the Aboriginal rental housing program be administered insuch a way as to ensure that priority is given to those with the greatest need. This is contained inrecommendation 16. Whilst on the subject of need—it is becoming fashionable to be an Aboriginalperson. If one looks at the census figures, one finds that between the 1981 and 1986 censuscollections, Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander populations increased by 37.1 per cent, that is from44 698 to 61 268 people, and the Brisbane statistical division recorded an increase of 66.9 per cent. Incomparison, New South Wales had an increase of 66.9 per cent and the Sydney division registered an84.9 per cent increase. Obviously, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people whoclaim to be of Aboriginal and Islander descent. It also indicates that Queensland Aborigines aresubstantially an urban group and reinforces my argument that individual Aborigines do not really wantto go back to their communities or their traditional ways.

Having said all that, the Opposition believes that there are some positives attached to thelegislation and there are some provisions that we support. The legislation before the House allows fortimber and quarrying rights in the DOGIT areas. It also rectifies a failing in relation to the transfer ofleases within DOGIT areas. The Opposition supports this and, as previously indicated, the NationalParty was moving to correct those anomalies. We accept that that should have been done. We alsoapprove of the Government's decision to hand over areas of land previously held for Aboriginal peopleby the Department of Community Services. This would have been done by the former National PartyGovernment; however, we had problems finding a suitable title for the land in question, in particular atitle that would allow for some flexibility of usage. Does one place the land in a position where it cannotbe mortgaged or sold? If this is done, in many ways it precludes the development of the block forcommercial purposes. It will not and does not place the full responsibility for the control of the land inthe hands of the people, because, in order to gain true commercial experience, they must accept theconsequences of having made a bad decision. Associated with this is the question: will the constructionof buildings on this land be subject to local authority control and will local authority rates be paid on theland? If so, what happens if the rates are not paid? I ask the Minister to outline the answers to thosequestions.

The one matter that I agree with the Premier about concerns control, responsibility andaccountability. I firmly believe that if Aboriginal and Islander people are to have increased control, therewards 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 notbe given in such a way that would set them apart from the rest of the community, such as the proposalcontained in this legislation concerning national parks. The Opposition believes that national parks arefor the benefit of all Queenslanders and their ownership should remain with all Queenslanders. It shouldnot be passed over to any section or group, even if it is merely tokenism and in name only. The sameapplies 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 allQueenslanders through the provision of services and without


discrimination in favour of a particular group. This is fair and equitable. If the royalties were returned tothe people who owned the land, inequality would develop, because people whose land was beingmined for minerals would be benefiting, whereas those people whose communities did not have accessto minerals, would be disadvantaged. Inequality would develop between Aboriginal communities.

The Government claims to have gained industry support for this legislation. However, fromdiscussions with representatives of many of these groups, the Opposition has come to the conclusionthat their support is on the basis that the legislation does not appear to pose a threat to their particularindustry. However, reservations have been expressed and there is opposition to many of theGovernment'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 farmingindustries appears to relate to the future of people who hold leasehold land when their lease expires. Ihave approached the Minister in this regard and she has given me an assurance that it is not theGovernment's intention to regazette expired leasehold land to enable it to be open to claims byAboriginal people. The Minister could further allay those fears by giving an assurance that the vacantCrown 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 havespoken to me about their hopes, desires and grievances. While in many instances I may not havesupported their views, there are areas where I have done so. I am mindful that they have a deepfeeling of frustration; I feel that I understand the reason for many of their concerns. It is unfortunate thatthey have been placed in a position whereby many have had their hopes raised, only to now feel deepdisappointment. Their frustration and disappointment was manifested in the marches that took placelast Thursday and yesterday. Although the Premier may have gained some political mileage fromreferring to the group as a rabble, he should wash his mouth out with soap because whatever unresthas developed is purely a result of his and his Government's shameful raising of the expectations ofAboriginal and Islander people. The Opposition deplores the tactics used by the Governmentthroughout this whole legislative exercise and condemns the Government for it. The Government nowhas before it a mess.

The Opposition does not support the inclusion of the Preamble because, even if it has no legalimplications, 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 thefollowing words, the Honourable Tim Moore, who is a conservative Environment Minister in this greatcountry, introduced into the New South Wales Parliament the National Parks and Wildlife (AboriginalOwnership) 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 willpermit the vesting in Aborigines of an inalienable freehold title to dedicated national park areas thatare of great cultural significance to Aboriginal people."

Today, by virtue of this legislation, Queenslanders join in a common bond of realism and care ofhumanity 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 forenhanced interpretation and management of the parks estate. This legislation and subsequentchanges to the State's conservation legislation will facilitate the development of parks as great asKakadu, Uluru and Nitmuluk in the Northern Territory. The challenge for us as legislators, my parks staffas managers, and


the community as participants and partners, is to see the legislation work and to see the conservationand interpretative measures enhanced and improved.

By virtue of this measure, we in Queensland move into the mainstream conservation movement ofthe world. The experience and advantages of North America, Ireland and northern Asian models canbe used and adapted to apply to a unique Queensland solution. Support for these measures has comefrom major conservation organisations in Queensland. Neither I nor members of those organisationswould allow a reduction in the conservation values of the parks. Since the Goss Government came topower, its record on national parks' management in Queensland has been outstanding. An area of 1.5million hectares has been acquired or earmarked for national parks. The parks estate is now bettermanaged. Since 1906, we Queenslanders have prided ourselves on the passing of the State Forestsand 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, wholived in balance with it and who have left their footprints in the land—yet we have not fully shown thosefootprints. The time has come to maturely show and allow another facet of Queensland's park estate todevelop while not compromising the conservation values of the parks. Unfortunately, in the pastQueenslanders have not recognised the interests and responsibilities of Aboriginal people in regard tothose lands, particularly where Aborigines still have interests and responsibilities. For many years, theAboriginal people have shown their responsible attitude to wildlife found on land adjacent to theircommunities by their management of native fauna, including protected fauna, under section 7 of theCommunity Services (Aborigines) Act. This legislation addresses these issues and provides theopportunity for the approach to be expanded to other areas. There will also be opportunities forAboriginal 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, butrequires the Aboriginal owner to immediately lease back these parks to the Director of the QueenslandNational Parks and Wildlife Service. National parks will be gazetted in relation to claims where anAboriginal interest is indicated, and the claim will be allowed only on the basis of traditional affiliations orhistoric associations. This will be determined by a tribunal. Not only will Aboriginal interests berecognised, but also, essentially, the nature conservation values and other values of the parks willcontinue to be protected. Under this legislation, there will be no compromising of conservation values ofthe parks. Prior to any changes taking place in land tenure, these interests and values will be protectedby 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 conservationlegislation because, as a result of having been spread over a number of statutes, the existinglegislation is inadequate. Although the principal elements of the new policy directions are contained inthe Bills that will be discussed today, it is appropriate that I foreshadow the issues that will be addressedin the new conservation legislation and which will be the subject of public consultation. The needs of theAboriginal people that are set out in this Bill and public participation by the broader community in anyprocesses will be accommodated and expanded in the new legislation. That legislation will address theomissions and shortcomings of the existing legislation. In broad terms, the primary objectives of ournative 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 declaredlands capturing the maximum representation of Queensland's biological diversity; andincorporation of the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal communities, recognising their interestin the management of land and wildlife.


The new statute will provide a process for the protection of wildlife on lands varying from national parksthrough to private lands, using the same procedures. This new nature conservation legislation willprovide for the establishment of park management boards, the preparation and approval of parkmanagement plans, and provisions dealing with traditional uses. A range of community interests,including conservation , pastoralism and tourism, will be represented on the boards of managementand the public will be involved, initially by public comment and, later, comment on the draft plans asthey are developed. The park management boards will be responsible for the preparation of themanagement plan for a national park. Major plans so prepared will be subject to the provisions of theNational Parks and Wildlife Act and the approval of the Governor in Council. The management plansand management board provisions will apply to all major parks. Special provisions to take into accountthe special interests and the role in management of Aboriginal people will apply to those parks wherethey are the land-holder. The lease agreement and the management plan will specifically includesections which will protect and allow Aboriginal interests and values. The natural, scenic and othervalues will be protected in line with the current requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Thiswill be enabled by the preparation of zoning maps and management strategies. The public's right ofaccess to and use of the national parks will be guaranteed, but special areas, especially those ofcultural or religious significance, will be protected and access will be limited in these locations. Thiscurrently occurs at Uluru—Ayers Rock—and other Northern Territory parks without concern from the tensof 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 betaking note of the finer points to find out how we best balance the two needs, to see the enhancementof those parks by those traditional owners and to see how those traditional owners have benefited fromthis 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. Eachyear, tens of thousands of visitors visit that area, learn about that, and say, "So be it." That is what weare talking about with this legislation. We are not talking about something which is obscure or which willnot allow the average person to go somewhere. We are saying that, for religious significance, there aresome areas which will be kept with their religious significance in mind, and the people of Queenslandwill accept it, as have the people of Australia—the hundreds of thousands who have been to Uluru andare 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 traditionalowners and the elders of that place is an enriching experience which takes us back to those days whenthe Aboriginal people truly owned this land and lived in the balance. That sort of enhancement—to seethe interpretation which can be given to us by the Aboriginal people of those parks—is an enrichmentwhich is one that the people of Queensland will support, one which already in many places in Australiathe people of Australia have supported.

Traditional uses will be covered in the lease agreement and the management plan, but consistentwith the sound conservation management of the park. The Law Reform Commission report ontraditional 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 realisticnegotiations in Queensland. Traditional use will include the gathering of natural materials, traditionaleduction and visitation of an area, and religious use. That is in no way a definitive list. It is a list fromwhich we start and which will be added to by the traditional owners. The discussions that I have hadover the last three months lead me to believe that this will be a real advancement and a means bywhich the National Parks and Wildlife Service of this State will be able to see a greater enrichment.


The provisions in this Bill and the proposed changes to the National Parks and Wildlife legislationwill enable the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to involve the skills of the Aboriginalpeople in the management of their land for the benefit of the community as a whole. This will go handin hand with Aboriginal employment and training strategies for the parks. The involvement of Aboriginalpeople in park management and interpretation has been very successful in other States and this willadd a new dimension to our park management. It will also provide opportunities for development andrecognition of the Aboriginal people and their culture.

Although the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service already employs more than 25Aboriginal people, a percentage of our work force which is higher than that in the community, thesejobs and opportunities are mostly through employment schemes which are of a short-term nature. Mydepartment's employment strategy for Aboriginal people will develop a program which will enableincreased numbers of Aboriginal people to be trained for permanent jobs as rangers and otherpositions. Those people will bring many skills to the service through their long association with the landand knowledge of wildlife. These skills will enable the experiences of visitors to parks to be enhancedthrough development of interpretive and educational programs. Where this has been tried elsewhere inQueensland, it has led to much better understanding of the culture of Aborigines and their relationshipwith and responsibility for nature. These employment opportunities will also provide opportunities forAboriginal people to be able to improve their self-esteem and assist them to retain their traditionalvalues and identity.

Traditional users will need to be conversant with any management plan. Where that is likely toconflict between conservation and traditional uses, then conservation will and must take precedence inaccordance with the Law Reform Commission's report, and with the experiences that the Aboriginalpeople have been able to show us in their own trust lands to this time. In reality, I do not believe this willbecome a major issue, as the Aboriginal people to whom I have talked primarily want to see theseareas and some other areas held by them protected for future generations, and they agree with theprinciples set out in the Law Reform Commission report. They do want to be able to be involved in themanagement 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 notoccurring 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 significantgains for conservation through recognition of conservation values on lands owned by Aboriginalcommunities. These lands include areas such as the Aurukun wetlands, where successfularrangements developed on national parks will be able to be applied on a regional sense incooperation with the Aurukun people. I look forward to involving the Aboriginal people in a cooperativearrangement in the management of their lands for nature conservation purposes. I believe that it will bea symbiotic association. Both groups interacting together will achieve much more than we could byourselves.

Some people may well be concerned about which parks will be gazetted. I can assure the Housethat there will not be a flood of gazettals, as both the Aboriginal people and my Queensland NationalParks and Wildlife Service staff are insistent that what is important is that we do it properly, and this willneed a major commitment of scarce resources. The consultative process will allow the values of bothparties to be recognised and taken into account in the preparation of the lease and managementplans. This will precede any gazettal and thus avoid any misconceptions later on. Criteria which will beconsidered in any gazettal process will be focused on conservation needs and the needs and uses ofthe Aboriginal people. Any funds generated on these parks will go back to manage the parks andprovide employment and facilities. In addition, funds will be available from the Queensland NationalParks and Wildlife Service program for management and interpretation of these parks. Additional fundswill be sought to cover any costs associated with the establishment and management of the parks sothat management of other national parks is not jeopardised. We stand on the threshold of a


new era of conservation in a wide sense and specific use of the parks. It is up to members of thisParliament, 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 viewwhich borders on racism. It is racism. It is sad that at a time when the Government is doing so much forconservation management in this State—and it can really say, "Here is an opportunity for economicdevelopment in some areas, an opportunity for employment of some of the most disadvantagedpeople of this State"—the Opposition was only willing to say, "This would be unacceptable to us. Wehave no other solutions. We accept what Bob Katter did so many years ago in adopting a totallyClayton's view of land rights." In contrast to the view expressed today by the Opposition, theGovernment intends to move along positively in a forward direction. It is one step at a time. It is anability to say to people, "We will cooperate. We trust you. We believe in you. We are giving youopportunities." 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 inQueensland the Government is starting to give back to the Aboriginal people their respect, somethingwhich has meant so much to them for 100 000 years. As the supporter of conservation values in thisState, I am willing to say, "You did it for so many thousands of years. Now we want to learn from yourexperience." This Government looks forward to managing with the Aboriginal people somethingapproaching 4 per cent of the State—and, hopefully, in the future, more than that—and the other areasthat will be granted under this legislation, and it says clearly to the Aboriginal people, "Thank you forwhat you can show us in the future. Thank you for your support in these matters." I look forward to anenhanced conservation measure in Queensland, to a parks system which will be as good as that in theNorthern Territory. When overseas visitors think of Australia, they think of Ayers Rock and Kakadu. Inthe future, they will think of Aurukun and Lawn Hill Gorge—huge parks managed by Aboriginal peopleand boards of management with a majority of Aboriginal representation. The national parks of thisState will move into the same realm as Kakadu and Uluru. I am proud of what will be achieved in thefuture 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 thegallery—no doubt to cover the lack of any substance in this Bill—I shall endeavour to proceed. ThisGovernment and its Premier are a sham. What profound postulations are frequently coming forth fromthe lips of the illustrious Leader of the Labor Party! Unfortunately, they are just that. There is nosubstance to their hollow soundings. There are certainly no follow-up actions. The real contents of theAboriginal Land Bill of 1991 exemplify this. Undoubtedly, the losers are the Aboriginal and Islanderpeoples. On 22 May in this Chamber, at great length, the Premier held forth with a list of those whomhe had consulted prior to drafting this Bill. The list reads like a who's who of important corporateidentities. Nowhere on the list do we find the people for whom this Bill is supposed to "address theinjustices of the past". Dare I ask: are these not the same sorts of consultations and postulations thatthe Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, so frequently makes? Somewhat similarly, one thinks of that immortalline, "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 tothe dismay of many sound Labor Party members in this country, that Labor has deserted the ordinaryAustralians to run with the high flyers. The same is now happening in Queensland. Premier Goss andhis puppet Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ann Warner, have just as certainly run out on the indigenouspeople 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 bewithdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): The member for Landsborough will withdraw thosestatements.


Mrs SHELDON: If the Minister finds them offensive, I will withdraw them, but I felt they had acertain 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 asfar as reform goes in this State. A couple of weeks ago on the 7.30 Report, the former member forNundah, Phil Heath, said that Labor in this State was losing its way. He lamented that the muchvaunted reforms were in fact not a reality. He felt cheated. He felt this Government was notrepresenting the wishes of its elected members. He stated a fact that most people in this House alreadyknow, that the unelected power brokers of the Labor Party, Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd, really set thepolicies for this Government and, according to Mr Heath, tell the elected members—the people'srepresentatives—what to do. Could one ask, "Shades of Bob Sparkes?" I am sure the people ofQueensland will remember the loudly pronounced righteous indignation of the then Leader of theOpposition and now Premier of this State when he said of the last Government that the partyorganisation and other unelected people were really dictating the agenda. What has changed? MrGoss is just gloss and very little substance.

The Aboriginal people have been sold out, and I utter words of caution to those who feel theirinterests have been looked after. The Minister says in her speech that this legislation is just a step inthe whole process. Labor in this State and elsewhere is noted for its hidden agendas. The techniqueundoubtedly is "soften them up, then come in with the coup de grace". I return to these great—toquote the Minister's second-reading speech—"programs of reform, based on the principles of socialjustice". She said also, "The dispossession of their land has had devastating effects on Aboriginalpeople." I put to her the proposition that the Aboriginal people are still dispossessed. They aredispossessed of their culture and they are dispossessed of their right to an expectation of a lifestyle thatwill guarantee that their children will be educated to a standard that will enable them to becomevaluable members of this society. They are dispossessed also of their rights to expect the samestandard of health care that white Australians take for granted, and they are dispossessed of their rightto live to a reasonable age and not die from malnutrition, alcoholism, and diseases such as AIDS. ThisBill 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 inputafter the Bill was introduced to this House, I have organised to go to the Northern Territory and to CapeYork to consult with Aboriginal people there, to discuss with them their concerns and problems as theysee them, to evaluate their standards of living, health and education, and to talk to the women in thesecommunities and ascertain from them their thoughts on how to combat their multitudinous problems. Inthese instances women are usually more practical than men. My personal feeling is that, if we are evertruly to come to any real solution to the problems of the indigenous people of this land, we shouldavidly seek input from Aboriginal women. I was interested to note that recently when I consulted withthe Cape York Land Council here in Brisbane, not one of its members was a woman; even their whiteadviser was a male. I leave to begin this journey next Sunday. Unfortunately the Bill, after lying onlyseven 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 theother 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 wellknown fact that the Minister wanted a lot more input into the legislation. But like the amendments to the


adoption legislation, she was told by Premier Goss what to do. The person who in fact should havebrought this legislation into the House is the Premier. It is his Bill, after all. The Premier originally tookcontrol 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 remarkbecause 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 showncomplete 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 theend, the Minister has created a massive debacle all round, which is largely due to the fact that therehas been no consultation of any worth at all. The protests of last week and again yesterday proveunequivocally that those most affected by the legislation, that is, the Aboriginal people, are not satisfiedwith the Bill before us today. They are not satisfied because they feel that they have been ignored, andquite rightly, too.

During the Health Services Bill debate last week in this House, I thanked the Minister for Health foroffering the time of two of his foremost departmental officers to brief me on the contents of that Bill. Icommended 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. Ireiterate the necessity for such briefings to enable the opposition parties to debate adequatelylegislation and follow the principles as espoused in the Westminster system of democracy. I amsaddened by the fact that I cannot say the same for Minister Warner. She has provided only sevendays in which to receive comment on the Aboriginal Land Bill, seven days for the Opposition andinterest groups to evaluate this most important piece of legislation. Some weeks ago, because it hadbeen rumoured that so-called land rights legislation was shortly to come into the House, I approachedthe Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs outside this Chamber. I said to herthat I felt with such an important issue that was of concern to most Australians, black and white, that atruly bipartisan approach in input to legislation should occur. I asked her whether, before legislation wasdrawn up, consultation between her department and her would take place with Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs spokesmen for the other parties . This was a genuine attempt on my part to get the bestpossible legislation brought in on what is a very contentious and sensitive issue in the community. Herreply was that no consultation would take place but that when legislation was introduced she would getsomeone to explain it to me. What arrogance and conceit! However, I have been denied even thisexplanation.

Yesterday, the Minister informed me that she had been trying to get someone to carry out this taskof explanation but that really all the members of her department were far too busy. So much for themuch-vaunted consultative process! So much for true democracy! What a sham this Minister and thisGovernment really are. Premier Wayne Goss and his Minister Anne Warner have made a farce of theGovernment's promise of open and accountable government. Since the election in 1989, the mostserious and condemning accusation—namely, that of lack of public consultation—to be made against aGovernment has been directed constantly at the Goss Labor Government. How can the Minister expectpeople to be happy about something in which they have had no input, something that affects their livesand the lives of future generations, and something which even she admits as being one of the mostimportant 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'sneeds and interests because they have not been asked what their needs are. The Labor Government'sattitude toward Aborigines is more paternalistic


than that of any previous Government has ever been. As the Minister herself describes the legislation, itis a package—part of the reform package to which her Government alludes. It is a hotchpotch attemptat allaying Aboriginal people's request for land rights. It concedes nothing because it is only an attemptat 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 theCourier-Mail, because it relays the general community's feelings very concisely. The advertisementstated that the proposed legislation, if passed, would be irresponsible due to its indecent haste; excludeurban Aboriginal people; reinforce past Government paternalism; be potentially divisive within Aboriginalcommunities; 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 Fitzgeraldreform process?"

I can tell honourable members what has happened. It has gone down the drain, along with theGovernment's many other election promises. The community is indeed divided. Aborigines feel thatthey 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 openfor more and unaccountable land rights and that they will have no protection from possible evictionwhatsoever. This legislation provides for vacant Crown land to be made available under claims byAborigines by gazettal from time to time. This could leave the way clear for land currently leased fromthe Government by farmers in Queensland to be given to Aborigines when a farmer's lease has runout. Many farmers have lived on this land for generations and do not want to leave. Although Iappreciate 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 asone of the intentions of the Bill that in the coming years "significant areas of Aboriginal land will emergefrom 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-Aboriginalpeople. However, I believe that all Australians, both black and white, deserve equal rights to land inAustralia. 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 nationalparks that can be claimed for Aboriginal purposes. Although the Bill provides for the land to be leasedback and the public's right of access to be guaranteed, it also allows for limited access to "specialareas", which is certainly an infringement on the rights of average Australians. The mining industry isconcerned that hostilities may occur because the Bill provides that the mining of Aboriginal land may berefused by Aboriginal land-holders, but that if this consent is withheld, the Governor in Council mayoverturn any refusal. This makes a mockery of the rights of the Aboriginal land-holders, is in completecontrast to the Whitlam legislation of the mid-1970s, and completely negates the provisions it seeks toenforce.

The Liberal Party has expressed its concern about the rights of mining companies. This Bill doesnot provide any reason to retract those concerns, nor does it grant any benefits to the Aborigines. ACommonwealth Industry Commission report into mining and minerals-processing in Australiarecommended that direct negotiations should occur between traditional Aboriginal owners and miningcompanies. This Bill will not allow such negotiation and will further prohibit reconciliation betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal interest groups. Prior to the 1989 election, State Labor Party policystated—

"A State Labor Government will recognise the right of Aboriginal and Islander communities torefuse permission or to establish conditions for commercial exploitation including mining, forestryand fishing on land not designated as sacred.

Royalties from such mining will be paid into a trust and used only by and for Aboriginal orIslander 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


the Governor in Council. Whether the Liberal Party would or would not support this concept is not inquestion. What is in question is a breach by the Government of its policy. A further breach is in relationto the royalties, because the Minister has said that the Government will allocate partial royaltyequivalents for the general benefit of Aboriginal people under a formula yet to be determined. Is theMinister asking us to approve legislation that has yet to be determined? It is obvious from pastperformances that we cannot accept a promise on anything from this Government.

The Minister quoted quite extensively from the report of the Royal Commission into AboriginalDeaths in Custody. It is obvious that she placed great importance and emphasis on the value of thisreport. However, an issue of such magnitude as land rights in Queensland did not warrant an inquiry orreport. Perhaps it is because the Government has found that such an inquiry creates controversy, ashas been evidenced with the Fraser Island inquiry. Perhaps it is also because of the Government'susual 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 thathas transpired between her Government and interest groups. Why then have the Aboriginal peopleprotested outside Parliament House? Why have I received many calls from ordinary constituents ofmine decrying the Government's steamrolling tactics with this legislation and requesting that I voteagainst the Bill on the simple platform of no consultation? Is it that the Minister was too busy consultingwith 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 andgroups".

Why is it so necessary that this Bill be brought on for debate so quickly? Why could the interest groupsnot have had time to seriously and thoroughly evaluate the Bill and provide constructive criticism and/orsupport for the legislation? I cannot emphasise strongly enough my disgust and dissatisfaction with theMinister for rushing this most important and far-reaching legislation through Parliament this week. Asthe 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 amockery of our democratic society.

On 1 May this year, the Aboriginal Coordinating Council wrote to the Premier expressing its concernthat legislation would be rushed through without consultation with Aboriginal groups and before therelease of the legislation review committee's report relating to the management of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander communities in Queensland, which is due in August. What is the point of incurring thehuge cost of that inquiry if its findings are not to be used in constructive and appropriate legislation? Asthe council said: if the job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Another cause for concern is theMinister's absolute discretion in appointing trustees. According to the Bill, trustees hold a great deal ofpower, particularly as to what land can be leased to non-Aboriginal people. There is no stipulation as tothe qualifications of the trustees. Labor's pre-election promise was that land tenure would be in twoforms, one of which would be the areas determined as sacred sites by community councils inconsultation with traditional owners, upon which no exploitation may ever take place. This does notseem to be provided of in Bill, because the ministerially appointed trustee may lease all or part of hisland to Aboriginal people and, in certain circumstances, non-Aboriginal people. It leaves open thequestion as to whether those sacred sites will be totally protected. The Minister stated that adjacentland-holders' interests with respect to the management of feral pests and animals would be assuredthrough a consultative process. To date, consultative processes by this Minister leave a lot to bedesired, 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 controversysurrounding this Bill, 15 years seems excessive. It would be reasonable to review the legislation withinfive to eight years. Within that time-frame, initial problems will have arisen. If not attended to, thoseproblems will become extremely


serious and may jeopardise those whom the Bill is intended to help. If legislation is not adequatelyassessed, it could leave open the way for abuses of its intentions. We could be faced with the prospectof land rights claims to private land. These are not wild exaggerations that I have made. They arepossibilities, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that they do not happen. Icondemn the Goss Labor Government for the non-consultative manner in which it has brought thislegislation before the House, and for unduly raising the hopes of the Aboriginal and Islander peoplewhen it had no intention of performing. The Labor Party should not be allowed to govern by stealth andsecrecy. It has not even given a token demonstration of democracy. I also condemn the Minister for herinsensitive handling of this issue and for not allaying the fears of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalindividuals 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 tospeak in support of the Aboriginal Land Bill 1991. Many features of this Bill are worthy of mention, but Iwill confine my comments to the key features of the legislation which relate to land. The land dealt withunder this Bill can be described as falling within two broad categories. The first category is land that iscurrently deed of grant in trust land, Aboriginal reserve land or land that is leased to the councils atAurukun and Mornington Island. That category of land is described in the legislation as "transferableland". 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 comprisestransferred 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, andthe strong form of title that Aboriginal people will obtain under this legislation. I will then outline to theHouse the process by which groups of Aboriginal people can have their land claims evaluated anddetermined.

As I said, transferable land includes deed of grant in trust land, Mornington Island and AurukunShire lease land and Aboriginal reserves. The form of inalienable freehold title granted over the existingdeed of grant in trust areas will be a considerable improvement on the existing form of deeds. Atpresent, the title for each deed of grant in trust area is like a patchwork quilt. Most of the holes in thatquilt are taken up by Crown land that is dedicated for a present public purpose, land that is dedicatedfor possible future public purposes or Crown land that was excised from the title and is subject to alease. By transferring title to all such land to Aboriginal people, the proposed legislation will replace thatpatchwork quilt. Only roads and stock-routes will be excised from the new titles. The most tangibleelement 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 onwhich 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 landwithin the boundaries of deed of grant in trust land will be preserved, but the land will becomeAboriginal land. The net result will be a much tidier form of title and a more secure nature of title todeed of grant in trust land.

I turn now to the Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire leases. Most people will be familiar with thehistory of those leases, which were granted in 1978 under the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Theyrepresent a less secure form of title than deed of grant in trust title, being 50-year leases only. Thelegislation before this House will place Aboriginal lands covered by those two leases—some 0.5 percent of the State—in exactly the same category as other Aboriginal inalienable freehold title. The otherareas of land that will be transferable land are Aboriginal reserves. Reserves currently provide the leastsecure form of tenure that is available for Aboriginal people. At present, the trustee for most of thereserves is the Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. Those people who live on reserves have, in a legal sense, very flimsy rights to the use oroccupation of that land. Under the proposed legislation, inalienable freehold title will be granted overthat land. The grant of title will place the


relevant Aboriginal people in the same position as those Aboriginal people living in the areas that Idescribed earlier. The land that I have described in the transferable land category represents up to 1.8per cent of the area of the State, or approximately 3.1 million hectares.The grant of secure title underthe 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 ofAboriginal land. It will provide also an opportunity for groups of Aboriginal people to make claims toareas of vacant Crown land and national parks which will be gazetted as available for claim. By makingvacant Crown land available for claim, we will be releasing an estimated additional 2 million hectares, orapproximately up to 1 per cent of the State. By making national parks available for claim, we willpotentially be making up to a further 3.84 million hectares available for claim, or up to 2.2 per cent ofthe State. That area may increase if more land is acquired for national park purposes. Claimable landwill 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 theclaim. All new land successfully claimed on the basis of traditional affiliation and historical associationwill be granted on the most secure form of title available under the Crown, namely, inalienable freeholdtitle. Land successfully claimed on the basis of economic or cultural viability will be provided on the basisof 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 theinterests of Aboriginal people are taken into full account. That is particularly evident in the proceduresfor the lodging of an application for claim and in the hearing and determination of valid claims by theLand Tribunal. In my opinion, the position of Land Claims Registrar will be essential to the properimplementation of the legislation. The registrar will function as the first point of official contact forAboriginal people who are making a land claim. All applications will be considered by the registrar. As Imentioned earlier, applications will be accepted not only on the grounds of traditional affiliation andhistorical association but also on the grounds of economic or cultural viability. Therefore, the widestpossible 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 certainminimum requirements before their application will be accepted. Among other things, they will have toprovide a statement of the responsibilities that they will assume in relation to the land and, in somecases, provide notice of the intended use of the land. That will enable Aboriginal people to truly assumetheir responsibilities for the management of their land.

All correctly made claims will be referred to the Land Tribunal for determination. However, theregistrar may receive claims that should not proceed further. An incorrectly made claim will not simply berefused outright or referred back to the claimant group. The registrar will identify the grounds on whichthe application for claim was refused and may assist in the resubmission of a corrected application. TheLand Tribunal will hear correctly made claims. It will be responsible for determining whether such claimscan be legitimately established. At all times, the tribunal will give the widest possible consideration tothe interests of the claimant Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders. For example, the spiritual andspecial associations that people have for the land will be taken into account. For claims based oneconomic or cultural viability, the tribunal will examine whether the grant of the claim would assist inrestoring, 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 thewider community. Proceedings will normally be held in public. All claims under consideration will besubject to public notice and widely advertised to ensure that interested persons may apply to be aparticipating party to the proceedings for the hearing of the claim. Once a successful claim has beenestablished, the tribunal will assist the claimant group to assume the responsibility for the land. It willrecommend the appointment of trustees consistent with relevant Aboriginal tradition only in accordance


with the wishes of the successful claimant group. Might I simply say that the legislation represents asignificant milestone in the granting of rights to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders andprovides 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. Inmy early days, I was fortunate to have worked with many Aboriginal stockmen on both cattle and sheepproperties. I also visited them on their reserves, as they were then called. Those people have greatability, but they were hindered by the paternalistic administration of the previous Government. Onvisiting 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 thecommunity and to play a very constructive role. If any people who are involved in the grazing industrywere to go to the bottom of the cape or the gulf, they would hear about two Aboriginal stockmen, whoare referred to by name. It was the ambition of many young white stockmen to be the equal of DarcyDay and Johnny Tooth. Those two men were legends in their own life-times. They gained the greatestrespect from all sections of the community. Admittedly, they did it the hard way. They showed that theyhad 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 andthe incentive.

The Minister is to be complimented for introducing the legislation. Although there may have beensome argument about the time that it took, at least Aborigines will have something positive and they willbe able to make their own decisions. A few years ago, when I visited the Kowanyama area I saw one ofthe greatest displays of fresh vegetables that I have ever seen in any shop. They told me that thevegetables were home-grown, and I said that I would like to see where they were grown. I sawtomatoes, cucumbers, pumpkins and just about all of the other vegetables that could be found in anyfruit and vegetable market in a big city. However, they were all starting to die. The people were justharvesting the last lot. When I asked what had happened, I was told that sand had got into the pumpand the impeller was burnt out. The previous Government refused to pay for the cost of a new impellerto keep that vegetable garden going. Those people were self-sufficient. They did not depend uponanybody. They had done it all themselves, but the paternalistic administration was saying that theimpeller 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 therush?

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 legislationand a number of other pieces of legislation. It is burning the midnight oil. I do not know how manymembers on the Government side of the House are in favour of the long hours that this Parliament issitting. 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 thislegislation into the House for debate this week. Again I ask: why has so much overtime been worked toput this legislation before the House? Why have so many Saturdays and Sundays been set aside toput this legislation in place when in fact the Government knows very well that it is not ready for it andthat it has not allowed complete consultation to occur with Aboriginal communities throughoutQueensland? If


the Government has their support, why did demonstrations occur outside Parliament House last weekand again yesterday? These demonstrations have resulted in damage to property and equipment andhave had a detrimental effect on those people. They are not standing outside for the good of theirhealth or because they want to pat the Minister on the back, they are standing outside because theyobject to this legislation. Those demonstrations have not done much for the Aboriginal community. Thedemonstrators went out of their way to displace the Australian and Queensland flags. During the warmany people served under and died for those flags. They do not wish to see them desecrated in thatway.

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 hemust 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 Ministerhave apparently been working in cooperation, although rumour has it otherwise. They have introducedthis legislation without sufficient consultation and they have created an expectation which cannot bemet. They have created an expectation within Aboriginal communities throughout Queensland, but theGovernment cannot deliver. That becomes quite obvious when one listens to Aborigines who say thatthey have not been consulted, that they are not happy and that they have been led up the gardenpath.

The Bill takes control away from the elected representatives under the deeds of grant in trust. I willmention that again later on. This control will be put in the hands of those nominated by the Minister andthe trustees. Irrespective of what the Minister says, if the trustees have control of the land, they willhave 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 theyappointed 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 andwhen 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 racistcomments, but she should look at her own attitude to racism.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis): Order! Would the member for Gympie please continue withhis speech?

Mr STEPHAN: I am continuing with my speech. I was taking an interjection from the Minister. Iwas pointing out that these are the same sorts of comments as the ones made by the Premier aboutthe rabble that he claims he has stirred up in the last couple of days.


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 landby Aboriginal people. Another problem is the ready availability of alcohol in these communities. There isnothing 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 Governmentmembers contradicting me now? Of course this is a land Bill, and its provisions cover many of theactivities undertaken by Aborigines in Aboriginal communities. I am pointing out the difficulties theyhave 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 wasendeavouring to ask the Minister what measures she had put in place and what action she had takento help overcome the effects of alcohol. I point out that Aboriginal councils are taking steps on their owninitiative to address this problem. The type of activity to which I have referred has an influence onAboriginal communities that cannot be ignored.

Ms WARNER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact thatthe honourable member seems to be speaking to community services legislation in respect of alcoholcontrol 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 ofwhat I have been saying and bear in mind that the problem must be addressed. In the Minister'ssecond-reading speech, she stated—

"This Government is committed to implementing reform that will provide Aboriginal people withan opportunity to gain secure title to their traditional land and enable them to maintain theiridentity, spirituality, and cultural and economic viability."

I believe that the Minister has incorrectly addressed the issue of traditional land because the history ofAboriginal communities reveals that traditional land was reasonably small in area for each tribe. A tribe'straditional land would have boundaries marked by features such as mountains, rivers and certainstretches of plain. When the Minister refers to traditional land, I point out that the term applies to theland that belongs to a single tribe and not to the land owned by the entire Aboriginal community inAustralia.

The Minister nods her head in agreement, but I query how many Aboriginal people today couldlegitimately claim title to their traditional land. Does the Minister contend that people of mixed bloodwould also have a legitimate claim to traditional land, bearing in mind that tribal lore does not recognisemixed 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?


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 withdifferent 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 ininformation 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 behindthe activities that are taking place in the various communities. The Minister can learn from those whohave had a life-time of experience and know what is happening in various communities throughoutAustralia. I have given the Minister the title of one book, and that is a start; she can follow up otherinformation herself. If she takes the trouble, she may become a little better educated in relation to thismatter 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 ofemphasis has been placed on the deeds of grant in trust, which have attracted some criticism. Simplybecause there have been problems associated with this form of tenure, there is no need to pull downthe whole house if there are one or two sections only that need to be rectified. The Minister is trying topull down the whole house, even though it is not necessary to do so. She refers to the changes that willoccur 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 Aboriginalcommunities and Aboriginal culture. Aborigines will still have to obtain approval before they gain accessto the land, and I can see no benefit to the Aboriginal communities or to the wider Australiancommunity from that type of proposal. The Minister will add to the difficulties by segregating Aboriginesfrom the rest of


Australia instead of ensuring that they become part of the nation that they—as much as anybodyelse—helped to build. If they are given the encouragement, there is every reason to believe that theAboriginal people will be able to continue to make Australia a better place in which to live. I wonder howmany Government members have worked with Aboriginal communities and families. It is only byworking with those people over a period that one realises that one's own point of view is not the onlypoint of view. It would be a good idea if Government members had consulted Aboriginal communitiesto a greater extent.

Mr Comben spoke of Aboriginal ownership of national park areas. I question why the Governmentmakes land available for Aboriginal communities in national parks and thereby distinguishes their rightsfrom those of all other Australians. At present, Queenslanders are concerned at the different legislationthat is provided for one race in Australia as compared to that provided for other races. If one segmentof 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 oftenthe 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 hasworked 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 forBrisbane 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 nationalparks. If that is not dividing the community, I do not know what is. I do not say that people should notpay for access to national parks, but that access should not be available to just one section of thecommunity; 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 thislegislation will not be plain sailing. I wanted to highlight those matters, but it appears that my commentsare falling on deaf ears. Those problems will not go away and they are not addressed adequately in thelegislation, as was evidenced yesterday by the demonstrators who were genuine in their desire to pointout to the Government that this legislation will not overcome the problems of Aborigines. Governmentmembers are not listening to the wishes and desires of Aborigines. The Government has beenprepared to rush this legislation through without obtaining adequate advice from or having adequateconsultation with the community. It is a pity that the Premier is not in the Chamber. From time to time inthe media, he has had much to say about this subject. However, when the legislation is debated in theChamber, he is neglecting his responsibility to the Aboriginal people by not giving us the benefit of hisopinion when he has the opportunity to do so.

Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (2.50 p.m.): Three life-times ago, white people founded a convictsettlement where we are now debating this Bill. They made a profound error. They failed to recognise inlaw or in practice the system of Aboriginal law and Aboriginal


land ownership which had operated in this land for at least 40 millennium. This Bill corrects that error byrecognising for the first time in the history of this Parliament the principle of traditional Aboriginal landownership. That profound error ran through the history of this State in a way which caused thedispossession—the alienation—of Aboriginal and Islander nations. This Bill recognises that there is aright at law for Aboriginal people to claim land on the basis of their traditional links with that land. That isa radical breakthrough in the development of law in Queensland. It is a profound change in the bedrockupon 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 Aboriginaland Islander people. For, make no mistake, the law-making of Aboriginal and Islander people has notbeen extinguished by two centuries of colonisation. What this Bill attempts to do is to send a messagefrom this Legislature that for the first time since colonisation in Queensland the Government acceptsand recognises the existence and operation of a system of law and land-ownership which is an ancientand powerful tradition. I will deal with the development of that principle since colonisation, with thepractical benefits which this Bill will confer upon Aboriginal and Islander people and with the issue ofnational parks, but before I do so let me deal with the contributions made by the members of theOpposition 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 iseasy to see how much further we need to go in order to achieve a true rapprochement between the twogreat legal and cultural traditions of our State. Those concerns upon which I reflected were dispelled asthe day dispels the mist when I listened to the member for Burnett, for one comes to this House tolisten to the criticism made by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and, indeed, by the Liberal Party. What isthe 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-seatedresistance 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 beingtokenism, and yet in his own speech referred, with approval, to the recent Canadian judgment in whichhe said there was rejection of the entire basis of land rights. That is to say, we are confronted on theone hand with an argument of tokenism, that the Bill does not go far enough, and on the other handwith an argument that there should be no land rights as such recognised in our law. What a patentinconsistency.

Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The member for Yeronga is deliberately misrepresentingwhat 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 thepossibility of land being available when farmers' leases expire, alluded to concerns about the veto onmining and, indeed, alluded to what she saw as the desirability of having a sunset clause of less than15 years.

Mrs Sheldon: Don't you think white Australians have any concerns about this at all? Don't youthink they should have any concerns about this?

Mr FOLEY: Quite so. Of course white Australia should have concerns, because the current stateof the law diminishes the dignity and status of white Australia as much as it diminishes the dignity andstatus of black Australia. The whole point of introducing reform in this area is not merely to confer abenefit upon Aboriginal and Islander people,


it is to come to terms with the profound injustice upon which our law and our system of land-ownershiphas been hitherto predicated. It is as important for my family as it is for the families of Aboriginal andIslander people. It is as important for those of us who are descended from the Irish and the English tomake a rapprochement to come to terms with those families and peoples who claim this land as theirown by dint of historical origins from time immemorial.

Up until now we have proceeded upon a patent legal fiction which has been devoid of bothhistorical justification and merit. That error was elevated to become a binding doctrine on Australiancourts, or at least so it was thought by the Privy Council in 1886 in the case of Cooper v. Stuart whentheir Lordships wrongly found that there was no settled system of law, nor settled inhabitants, at thetime "when the colony was peacefully annexed to the British dominion". We know that that is false. Weknow that this colony was not peacefully annexed to the British dominion. We know that there was afrontier war in which tens of thousands of Aboriginal people died. We know that there was a settledsystem of law and that there were inhabitants with a complex, rich and ancient culture prior tocolonisation. 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 debatedduring 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 thedebate 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, solutionswere offered in this cartoon on the Aboriginal problem. Bishop Hale on the left held the feeding bottle ofsocial 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 towhich Governments relate in their dealings with Aboriginal and Islander people. I table that extract fromQueensland Punch. That reminds us that no Government prior to this Government had the courage tocome 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 Protectionof Aborigines and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act. But it was then thought that Aborigines woulddie 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, GoughWhitlam, that the Australian Government took steps to introduce a review of the legislation which wasultimately 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 past15 years. Is this the same party which introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act andwhich now scurries away from this legislation using the red herring of a consultation issue in order torefuse to face up to this central question. Will we or will we not, as a Legislature, give acknowledgmentto the Aboriginal and Islander system of law and land ownership. We on this side of the House give aresounding "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 greatdisservice 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 ofgrant in trust areas will be available as inalienable freehold title. Timber and quarry rights will beincluded. At present, that is not the case, despite certain written assurances by the previousGovernment. That omission will be reformed under this Bill. The people of Mornington Island andAurukun will gain a benefit under this Bill. Their current 50-year leases will be converted to inalienablefreehold. We all remember that dark time in 1978 when Premier Bjelke-Petersen degazetted Aurukunand 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.


That will be cured. Residents of Aboriginal reserves will gain a benefit, in that that land will be subject toinalienable freehold title whereas previously Aboriginal reserves would be merely at the discretion of atrustee, that is, the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. New land willbe 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 1.16per cent of the State. Of course, national parks will also be available for claim, and that makes a further3.84 million hectares, or 2.2 per cent of the State, available for claim. Unlike the legislation introducedby Malcolm Fraser in respect to the Northern Territory, this Bill will make available the right for urbanpeople and people in provincial areas to claim in respect of land of which they have no traditional orhistorical 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 amajor reform which sets this legislation ahead of the legislation operating in other parts of Australia. Theposition with respect to national parks is one in which Aboriginal people will be entitled to participate withrespect to the management plan. The importance of that relates to Aboriginal traditional activitiesrelating to the land, including hunting, fishing, and food-gathering. Also, we have learned from the Ulurumodel that it is important that Aboriginal people who have a traditional or historical association withnational park land should be entitled to a say. Their ownership of that land should be recognised, andthe legitimate demands of conservationists and other community groups can properly be recognisedunder the management plan.

I make no secret of the fact that—indeed, my view is a matter of public record—in my opinion thereare a number of areas in which this legislation falls short of that to which we should aspire as Aboriginalland rights legislation. Matters such as the statutory land acquisition fund, regional land councils andimproved provisions for mining are subjects about which many Aboriginal people have spoken. Theirvoices have put forward very sound arguments. However, that should not be allowed to confuse andconfound 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 withthe Aboriginal and Islander community, appearing in this week's Catholic Leader. The analysis isheaded "Insensitive consultation—but it's a step forward". I table that analysis, for it weighs in withsubstantial 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 dealingwith in addressing this legislation currently before the House.

On that issue of consultation, I note the document tabled in this House on 22 May andincorporated in Hansard concerning the pattern of consultation provided for during the course of thepreparation of this legislation. In that respect, I do invite the Minister to clarify, in the course of thisdebate, what provision was made available in respect of consultation with the Aboriginal CoordinatingCouncil, 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 thata member be further heard, but it has to be with the consent of the majority of the House. I will now putthe 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 theHouse, I think it should be open to debate. The situation is that we have accepted——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!


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 withoutDebate, 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 theHouse. One has only to look at what has been done. As was mentioned by the Opposition spokesmanearlier 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 therush? If the Premier wanted to consult widely and fairly with people, why is the Bill being put throughwith undue haste? I guess when we ask ourselves, "Why?", we can probably answer the question veryeasily. 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 verybright to realise that. It is unfortunate that the Premier and members opposite have used the Aboriginalpeople of this State for an election ploy. In 18 months of Government, they have succeeded what we inthe National Party could not do in 30 years––they caused them to riot in the streets. Never before havethe 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 absolutedisgrace for the people of Queensland to call this Government a Government at all. It is a Governmentthat 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 wellfor so long. From the time the Minister took office, the issue of land rights was going to be a headachefor 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. Thewimpish policies of a Premier with an eye on the popularity polls were not for her. She went straight toATSIC—the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission—which was foisted on Australia by theLeft Wing toe-cutter, Gerry Hand, in 1989. Her faction mate's creation yielded plenty of ideas, andsome people who would come in on contract to put them in place. Out went the people, black andwhite, who made the DOGIT system work to such advantage for the black people of this State. In camethe crowd—and, guess what, mostly all of them are white—who have turned into an industry the realproblems black people face. The future growth industry of Queensland will be land rights. The peoplewho will benefit are the white carpetbaggers, not the Aboriginal people of Queensland.

Mr Booth: They have taken over the parks.


Mr HOBBS: That is right, they have taken over the parks. They even pulled down the gates ofParliament House. The Minister set those white people to work, raising black expectations to totallyunreal levels and preparing legislation that frightened everyone except the Minister's own Left Wingfaction. By early this year, the Premier had no choice other than to intervene. He could no longerpretend that nothing to do with land rights was happening in the Department of Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. There was too much talk going on amongst black communities and too much informedspeculation 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-awaythat was promised to every Aboriginal group in the State. They realised how serious it was when thedepartment put a submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. That submission, which contained proposalsthat 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 torecommend a massive hand-over of land, sought to treat one group of Australians as intrinsicallydifferent from all other Australians. It would have gone down like a lead balloon, and the Premier knewthat. Just to be sure, he went along to Mr Fitzgerald's dispute resolution conference and floated ageneral 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 hasbeen referred to by the honourable member for Burnett. The honourable member should not berepetitive. 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 timebut——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is a reflection on the Chair. The honourable member willwithdraw 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 Ipoint 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 yourstatement."

The shadow Minister spoke about the statement. I am speaking about the deceit that was written inblack 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 asintrinsically different from all other Australians. The Premier's proposal did not fly too well. The ambitclaims were enormous, and he had to move fast to damp down the backlash that he was inviting. Enterthe Cabinet Office and Mr Rudd. Responsibility for land rights was magically transferred from theDepartment 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, JackiByrne, was put in charge, with the work being done by people such as the activists Ross Rolfe andMarcia Langton. This cynical Government even went so far as to bring in a leading member of theCape York Land Council. Noel Pearson was hired as a consultant on a contract, which cost the peopleof Queensland $750 a day. The aim was to muzzle Mr Pearson or to persuade him to go along with thePremier'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 didnot go too far. He was also the one to ram the policy down the throats of the groups who would bemost affected, namely, the mining and pastoral industries. And ram the policy he did. Industrydelegations were called in and


shown the legislation piece by piece. Although they were asked to comment, they were also warnedthat 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 didnot agree to it. Miners and land-holder groups were told that the legislation had to be written fast andpassed quickly through the Parliament in order to beat the High Court decision in the Murray Islandcase, which is commonly known as the Mabo case. They were told that something had to go on thestatute 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 themainland. Of course, the Premier knows that very well, because part of establishing his Laborcredentials 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 discussionswith industry groups was certainly deceitful. It was also intimidatory. Intimidation was also usedruthlessly against pastoral groups when they expressed legitimate concern about the amount of landthat might be made available for claim. They were told very quickly that stock-routes and other specialpurpose 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. TheMinister's people ran about the State telling Aboriginal people that the promised land was about to bedelivered. As late as a couple of weeks ago, they even turned up at Doomadgee. They were still up totheir old tricks. They told the Kalkadoon people living there that the area containing the proposedCentury mine should be claimed. They were deceiving the Kalkadoons, because they knew that thelegislation 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 anextreme danger to our traditional system of land management and land tenure. In spite of promisesmade by Mr Rudd, this Bill also poses great dangers to many current land-owners. The Preamble, theBill itself and the Minister's second-reading speech leave us in no doubt that Mr Rudd has faileddismally in his task of keeping the lid firmly on extravagant claims. The amendments that the Househas passed to the Acts Interpretation Act make that doubly certain. I want honourable members toconsider the impact of section 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act when the inevitable cases arising outof this legislation reach the courts. Section 14B makes it clear that extrinsic material may be used ininterpretation 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 theGovernment 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 ofthis Bill but also the Preamble and the Minister's second-reading speech. The courts of the future areasked to decide that the legislation simply implements


the philosophy expressed in the Preamble and in that speech. It tells the courts that Parliament as awhole 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 butsocialist, warm-inner-glow nonsense, which may, however, be used in the interpretation of the intent ofthe Act. How about this: the Preamble states that land in this State was used and enjoyed since timeimmemorial by Aboriginal people. That sounds very much like the pre-existing title referred to in thedepartmental submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. If Parliament endorses that paragraph of thePreamble, it invites judges to rule favourably on arguments in favour of pre-existing title. Paragraph 2 ofthe Preamble refers to land having spiritual, social, historical, cultural and economic importance toAboriginal people. I submit that land is important for all of those reasons to all Australians. Paragraph 6of 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 saida 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 isall 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, noteveryone can line up for free land. Paragraph 8 should be thrown out. I, for one, see no truth in what itsays. I do not doubt that we need to assist anyone in our community who is disadvantaged, but theprinciple should be one of equal rights for all. I believe that past laws gave proper recognition to theland needs of the Aboriginal people in this State. I believe that the DOGIT system was the mostappropriate system of providing land. So does the Government and so do many Aboriginal people. TheGovernment 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 adeclaration from the Parliament that Aborigines are somehow different from the other people of thisState. It seeks a declaration that they are somehow inferior and that they need some sort ofpaternalistic guidance. That is absolute nonsense. It is time that all Australians woke up to the fact thatwe are all the same. We cannot go on forever perpetuating divisions in Australian society. There is nolonger a place in an Australian Parliament for that sort of discriminatory statement to be made. Wheredoes it end? Will special legislation be introduced for Asians, for north Europeans and for differentreligions? 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 invitedto take note of it as a guide to interpretation. That could lead to a great widening of the application ofthe legislation, especially in the current social climate. As a sign of good faith by the Government, thePreamble 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 dealhonestly with the people of this State, he will eliminate a certain means for the scope of the legislationto be widened. If the Preamble stays in the Bill, it will not take long for that to happen. Indeed, theMinister has been strutting that line on television. I remind honourable members of what she said lastnight on the 7.30 Report. Here is the gist of what she said: we have not seen the end of legislation onland rights; this is not the last word. We in the Opposition ask the Minister: what is the last word? Whatare the changes that she proposes?


The same message came through loud and clear in her second-reading speech. Clearly, sheintended that as an argument for future expansion of the scope of land rights. The Premier's men havebeaten her for the moment, but she has planted a time bomb. Hansard now records the Minister's clearintention that this is just the start. Let us consider that speech. It is literally riddled with references toprior 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 theburning and bulldozing of homes and the shooting of animals. She talked about brutality. The Ministergave us a litany of emotive words. She wants us wallowing in guilt over what she accuses pastgenerations of doing. I suppose that that is meant to divert us from what she is trying to do and toinfluence 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 spelledout in her speech, for the real agenda that was spelled out at the gates of Parliament and for the realagenda in her department's submission to the Fraser Island inquiry. That real agenda is simple enoughto achieve using this legislation along with the Acts Interpretation Act, existing national parks legislationand existing lands legislation. That this is the plan is easily illustrated. The Government issuedexplanatory papers on the legislation. The contents varied according to who received it. There were twoversions: one for the general community and one for the Aboriginal people. Industry groups werereassured that almost nothing would be given away. Mining interests were protected; stock routes wereprotected; and no urban land would be up for grabs. The total area of the State that would be up forgrabs would be only a few per cent. The document sent to Aboriginal groups was very different. Here itis. 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 theState. That would include the present Aboriginal lands covering 1.8 per cent of the State and thefurther 1.16 per cent of the State that would initially be made available for claim. Then we come tonational 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 millionhectares 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. Itstates that the national parks figure would rise commensurate with the Department of Environment andHeritage acquisition program. It is here in black and white. The Minister's mate, the feral cat, had hispart to play. He was here a while ago, posturing, raising his eyes to the heavens and trying to showsome emotion, yet behind the scenes they used the knife. The document goes on to boast about howthe essentials of the Uluru model have been adopted for Aboriginal control of national parks. I do nothave 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 hundredsof parks."

I repeat—hundreds of parks will be handed over, but hopefully not to the Minister's mates who put insuch a disgraceful performance here yesterday. The Government said that in this respect potentially itwill be the most expansive regime in the country. Members can put money on that. The Minister forEnvironment and Heritage has already embarked on an extensive program of park acquisition. He hasgrabbed vast areas of the State from private land-holders. He has taken land from people at prices theywere forced to accept under threat. They have lost land that was sacred to them. In many cases, theland has been in their families for generations and their ancestors are buried there.

Time expired.


Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (3.31 p.m.): The Bill before this House today unquestionably marks oneof the most significant milestones in the history of this Legislature. Not since the inception of this Housein 1860 have the rights of Aborigines to their traditional lands in Queensland been recognised as theyare under this legislation. In so saying, I am cognisant of the fears and concerns with which this Bill isreceived and is currently regarded by many Queensland Aborigines.

I wish to give the House a little background of my involvement with Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people in Queensland. I have experiences and associations with Queensland Aborigines andIslanders which are above and beyond the experiences of most other members in this Chamber. For anumber of years I have worked in, stayed at and visited all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities in Queensland. I have visited all provincial towns and met with many of the representativeorganisations in those parts of the State in which a significant proportion of the indigenous populationresides. Over the past two years, in my capacity as the member for Cook, I have worked closely withAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout my electorate, which comprises most ofthe actual communities in Queensland. I have come to know most of the elders, elected communitycouncillors and members of representative organisations.

I do not profess to be an expert on matters relating to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, nordo I claim to fully understand the complex structure of their spiritual beliefs and its entwining with theland. It is ironic for members on the other side of the House to stand up and make exhortations aboutthe structure of complex belief systems and cultural systems which operated amongst Aborigines andTorres Strait Islanders, because I do not believe that they possess even the limited experience that Ipossess. In the case of the honourable members for Burnett and Gympie, it is evident from thespeeches that they made here today that they have done very little research on the subject. However, Ihave experiences and associations with Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which go beyond theexperiences 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 deprivationwhich has been inflicted on Aborigines in Queensland and, indeed, Australia for over two centuries. Themember for Yeronga spoke earlier about some of those matters. This is not to ignore or down play thelitany of events by which Aborigines have become the most impoverished race in our nation. Rather, inthis debate I believe we should look prospectively at what this Bill heralds for the future of Aborigines. Inso doing, members and the people of Queensland need to be mindful of the principles which underliethe drafting of this Bill. In presenting this Bill, it is not the intention of the Government to apportionblame or determine responsibility for past wrongdoings. In short, the Bill is not motivated by guilt. I takethe points made by several members opposite. They seem to believe that under this legislation thisLegislature and the people of Queensland will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of ourpredecessors. That is not the intention of this legislation. It is not the intention to make people feelguilty or responsible for those past wrongdoings, it is to recognise that those wrongdoings haveoccurred and to attempt to do something about redressing them. This legislation is inspired by theGovernment's recognition that the land was occupied by Aborigines for many thousands of years priorto European settlement. For the first time, a Queensland Government has recognised that Queenslandlaws 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, mainlythose on his side of the House, have with their land through their involvement with farming and workingthe land. I find it extraordinary that people who have that association by having lived on and workedwith the land for, contextually, the relatively short period in Australian history that they have, cannotrecognise that a race of people, who have been here for probably 100 000 years, if not longer—andwho live possibly not in the same manner, but certainly use the land in the same way through


farming, working the land and the complex system of land ownership that they had prior to Europeansettlement in Australia—feel dispossessed because they have been forcibly removed from their land. Iam not trying to make members feel guilty. I am trying to make them understand that the feelings theyhave 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 theirland.

I thought that, of all people, members of the National Party would be able to recognise a specialrelationship with the land. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people have been dispossessed of theirland. They talk about the Minister's second-reading speech in which she alluded to people beingpushed off their land and having their houses burned. I have spoken to people who have had thathappen to them. The Lamalama people from Port Stewart have told me about the way in which theywere put off their land and ostensibly taken by boat to hospital on Thursday Island. Before they wereout of sight from the shore, their homes had been burnt to the ground. I ask members of the NationalParty to consider how they would feel if someone came along to, for example, the member for Warwickand said, "Okay, Des, we're going to take you into Warwick for a medical check-up this afternoon", andbefore he had gone out of sight down the road, his home had been bulldozed and a match had beenput to it. Members of the Opposition should stop and think for a moment how they would feel if thathappened to them.

Let us consider when, if ever, rights to compensation for land are extinguished. It is a fundamentalaspect of this debate that the rights of Aboriginal people to their land have not been extinguished bythe passage of time, and this must be recognised. Let me cite the example of the Gulf war in theMiddle East. The Kuwaitis were taken over by an aggressive, opposing force from a neighbouringcountry that moved in, took over the land and took over control of the infrastructure. That aggressorforced the Kuwaitis into suppression. What did Australians do? They rallied to that cause and sentAustralians to Kuwait to repel the invaders because we recognised Kuwait's sovereignty and the justentitlement of the people to their land. Members of the Opposition are not prepared to recognise thoserights in the case of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. They should recognise that the merepassage of time over 200, 300 or 400 years—which is insignificant in the context of the 100 000-oddyears that Aborigines have occupied the land—is insignificant, and is insufficient to extinguish theirrights to the land. The Aborigines' rights to the land still exist today, and this Government's commitmentdoes not stop at recognising their right to land. This Government has demonstrated that it is preparedto act to begin to remedy those injustices.

The figures from the June 1986 census, which were published in the Weekend Australian on 2February 1991, showed that Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander population comprised 61 200people. I saw a more recent figure of 66 000 people published in the press, which is approximately 2.4per cent of Queensland's population. On a State and Territory comparison, Queensland has the largestpopulation of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, and Queensland also has one of the highestproportions of Aborigines and Islanders of any State. The article states that as at June 1986, only 5square kilometres of land was held in freehold title by Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Membersof the Opposition talk about equal rights for Aborigines. Less than 5 square kilometres of land is ownedin freehold title by Aborigines and Islanders, and I ask: what is equal about that? Some of the membersof the National Party probably have 100 times—if not 1 000 times—that area in their own farms, yetthey 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 fortheir land and they fought and died for it 200 years ago. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders own 8.3per cent of the total land area of Australia. Leasehold land held by Aborigines and Torres StraitIslanders in Queensland amounts to 1.8 per cent, which is basically the DOGIT areas, and acomparison of the


two figures indicates that Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders received a raw deal undersuccessive National Party and coalition Governments that refused to recognise their legitimate claims toland. Under this Bill, the Government will transfer to freehold title all land held under deeds of grant intrust, Aboriginal reserve land and the Aurukun and Mornington Shire leases. The Bill also provides forthe Governor in Council to gazette land for claim by Aboriginal groups. Claimable land includes vacantCrown land with some exceptions; beds and banks of watercourses and lakes within the boundaries ofavailable Crown land; and tidal land, where declared by the Governor in Council. I mention those lasttwo categories specifically because they are of considerable significance to Aboriginal groups in myelectorate, 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 spendsome time discussing national parks because the view has often been expressed to me that Aboriginesshould be grateful for national parks. Some people regard the declaration of national parks as anattempt to preserve land and the landscapes in their existing state that Aboriginal people may havelived in and worked with over many years. I acknowledge that there is a positive element in thatargument, but, nevertheless, national parks have been discussed in an adversarial context byAborigines, particularly those who live on Cape York Peninsula with whom I am most familiar. There aresome pretty good reasons for the way Aborigines feel because, over many years, they have beenpushed off their land after national park declarations and have been intimidated by threats ofprosecution if they went on to national parks to collect food. One only has to refer to the history of theArcher Bend national park and the Johnny Koowarta case to find an example of the way in whichnational parks were used by previous Queensland Governments to push Aborigines off their land ordeprive them of it. Aborigines have been deprived of the right to hunt, fish, camp, collect food, obtaintraditional medicines, and gather material for art and religious purposes from national parks, and thiswas brought about by the threat of prosecution. Aborigines have found very little security in the conceptof national parks as they have been traditionally designated.

I have discussed this matter at great length with representatives from many Aboriginalorganisations since my election and also with relevant Ministers on a number of occasions. Whileproviding mechanisms for ongoing environmental protection for national parks, which is demanded bythe 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 Directorof National Parks must, in consultation with appropriate Aboriginal groups, draft a plan of managementconsistent with Aboriginal tradition or traditional activities, including a number of those which Imentioned earlier. The board of management must provide representation for appropriate Aboriginalgroups. Under an amendment to be moved later, the board will also be involved in the regular review ofthe management plan. I welcome some of the statements that were made by the Minister forEnvironment 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: traditionalaffiliation, historical association, or economic and cultural viability. The member for Yeronga spoke quiteeloquently about the significance of the third of those three grounds, claiming economic and culturalviability, and what an important precedent that sets and what a fundamental part of this legislation thataspect 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 ofeconomic or cultural viability, and also acquired land, the trustees must consent before mining can takeplace. 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 ResourcesAct.


Additionally, the Bill allows the Government to allocate money received by way of royalties under theMineral Resources Act or the Petroleum Act in relation to Aboriginal land to the grantees of the land forthe benefit of Aboriginal people whose land is affected by the mining venture or for the benefit of theAboriginal 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 beenmentioned in this House previously, most recently by the member for Yeronga, those timber and quarryrights were promised by the previous Government under its DOGIT legislation and never delivered, butthis Government has delivered.

I turn briefly to some of the criticisms by Opposition members and some of the criticisms of thelegislation in the media. First of all, I will talk about the attitude of the parties opposite. The attitude ofthe Nationals and the Liberals on the issue of land rights has been as predictable as it has beendisappointing. For all the criticism of our Government by Aboriginal groups, which I acknowledge, theclear message is that neither of the Opposition parties has learned anything about this mostfundamental reform in the Queensland Government's policy towards Aborigines, and they have simplyregurgitated the same patronising and paternalistic phrases that epitomised their treatment ofAborigines for over 30 years. Their campaign of fear and smear and their attempts to createdivisiveness and disharmony in the community have denigrated and demeaned their status asmembers of the Opposition in this Assembly. I will cite a letter that has been quoted in this Housepreviously. 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 suchan 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 theland, its plants and animals—a firmly balanced eco-system to which latter day inhabitants cannotaspire."

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 twomonths? Absolutely none! He was obviously mouthing meaningless platitudes. He has betrayed thatsentiment 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 betrusted with the land because they could not manage their financial affairs. He pointed to audit reportsto try to substantiate his claim. I refer the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Toowong, to thereport of the Public Accounts Committee, on which the Liberal Party has a representative. I do not havetime to cite the passage that I wanted to include in Hansard, but, if he perused that, he would seesome of the underlying causes of the problems of financial accountability. They certainly do nothing tolessen the capacity of Aborigines to manage their land, something they quite effectively managed to dofor thousands of years before we came along.

Aboriginal land rights is not a panacea for all of the injustices, dispossession and deprivation whichhas been or is currently affecting Queensland Aborigines. This Government is developing amultifaceted strategy which addresses health, education, housing, industry and training, and othersocial issues in cooperation with Aboriginal people. To the people who sit on the other side of theHouse and say that the Bill says nothing about alcoholism and social problems in Aboriginalcommunities, I point out that that is because it is not a health Bill, it is a land rights Bill. We are here totalk about land. If honourable members want to talk about those matters, they should talk about themin the context of the relevant debate in this House and should not waste the time of the House withthose irrelevancies.


Unquestionably, however, the granting of rights to land is the most fundamental reform which ourGovernment can undertake to partially redress injustices of the past and to allow Aborigines to regainself-esteem. Non-Aboriginal Australians must recognise the historical implications on Aboriginal cultureof their forced dispossession from their land. Our society must recognise this and commit themselves tosupporting 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 Billwill, however, be in the commitment of this Government to facilitate the process of transferring andgranting land to Queensland Aborigines. The passage of this legislation should not be seen as the endof the land rights process but as the beginning. The Bill does not give land but establishes thelegislative framework through which Queensland Aborigines can begin to seek justice in the matter ofland.

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 fordoing that, and I do not deny that the criticism was probably justified. This Bill was also introduced in thedead 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 isthat the councils, or committees as they then were, which were elected by the people, unanimouslyagreed with the Bill that the National Party introduced. They did not like all of it, and they said thatpublicly. However, they said, "We will accept this group of laws and we will trial these laws and see howthey go because they seem all right to us. We are prepared to give them a go." That was the attitudethat was adopted. Members of the Aboriginal community sat up in the public gallery during the debateand next morning had breakfast with members of the Government. There was a spirit of consultationand coming together to try to achieve a better world for all of us. In sharp contrast, people can keepvideotapes of the television footage of the black people who demonstrated when this Bill wasintroduced.

The introduction of this legislation is in keeping with the actions of this Government's Federalcounterpart. Sixty-four representations were made to the group that was going around trying to find outfor Mr Gerry Hand whether or not the black people wanted ATSIC. Of the 64 groups, 61 rejected theATSIC proposal outright and 3 sat on the fence. There was total opposition to the introduction ofATSIC. The ALP Federal Government rolled right over the top of the black people and the matters thatthey had raised. Again, there is almost total disagreement with this legislation amongst the blackpeople of Queensland. I have issued a challenge to members of the Government to provide me withthe name of somebody who agrees with this legislation. I give fair warning that whatever name I amgiven will be given to the Aboriginal councils throughout Queensland. That person can answer to his orher own people for having agreed with this proposal. I hear a thundering silence. There is a lady on theGovernment side—her name is Lorraine Bird—who is pointing at her head. I do not know whether thatis because there is nothing inside it, whether she is indicating insults to me and to the black people inthe gallery, or whether she has got a name that she is prepared to give me. I have made an open andfriendly offer to the Government to provide me with the name of a single black person in the State ofQueensland 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 otherpeople in the State of Queensland. I think that as well as being extremely bad for black people, this Billis extremely bad for other people in Queensland. I do not blame the Minister, because she had nothingto do with this Bill. It was obvious on the 7.30 Report last night that the Minister had nothing to do withthe Bill. I suppose it is to her credit that she had nothing to do with it. Yesterday, when Mr Slack and Iwent to talk to the black people outside Parliament House, they said, "We don't want


to speak with the Minister. What the hell does she count for? She's nothing. This is Mr Goss' Bill." MrGoss—the very "clever" Premier of this State—has introduced this Bill, and he has pulled the double. Idid 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 thisBill—except for a couple of people who purportedly represent certain pastoral organisations. I regretwhat is going to happen to those people when the full ramifications of this Bill become known. I willpersonally be speaking to the Cattlemen's Union and the UGA branches in my area. I have alreadyheard the disquiet, anger and ugliness that has been expressed in relation to those people. This Billhas pulled a double. It has got everybody offside. I will say a bit more about that later. The Premier washiding 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 torndown——

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-oddyears of National Party Government in this State—the people of Queensland saw fit to give membersopposite a go—it took over the laws of Queensland. When the Labor Government took over thoselaws, the black people of this State who lived on the communities owned those areas. They owned 7million 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 dothat. That was their business. However, those people had a 90-year lease. All the rest of thecommunities 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 isin the public gallery hears and understands what I am saying. In the year of our Lord 1991, that 7million acres was taken back and the ownership of it was vested in the Crown. The Crown can nowdecide—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 theGovernment back bench. Previously, the Government said, "What the hell does it matter? We canappoint the people who are on the board. We control the board. It will do as we say." What we havehere is a board appointed by the Minister. I am pleased to see that the Minister is laughing and thatshe finds my comments humorous. If members of the Government do not believe me, they should goand get themselves not one of these parasitical, blood-sucking lawyers who so often crop up in theFamily 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 theGovernment 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 wouldlike, I would rise up. There would be nothing else that I could do if people were going to take my landaway from me like that.

Ms Warner: Do you collectively own your land?


Mr KATTER: I take the interjection from the Honourable Minister. There was never any intent inthat Bill for collective ownership. It was only ever intended that the councils were to own the land. All Ican say is that under the democratic system, every three years the people are able to redress thesituation and throw out the local shire councillors and replace them with councillors who are prepared toparcel the land out to private ownership. I can point to many examples where that occurred. I want tocast the minds of members back to when we took office in this place in 1957. When we took office atthat time, a person of part Aboriginal descent could be plucked off the street at any time by the policeand sent off to an area called a reserve, purely at the discretion of the Department of Native Affairs, asit was then called. There was no appeal against the exercise of that discretion. Upon arrival at thereserve, an order could be given by the reserve superintendent. "Superintendent" was the name givento the person in charge of a gaol in the State of Queensland at that time. An order could be issued bythe 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 cameto 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 remindthem that I have named the man and where he can be contacted. Mr Eric Law and Mr Bertie Buttonsboth know where he lives. This person was not old, he was about 55 or 60 years of age. We are nottalking 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 anAboriginal to a telephone pole and belt him with a leather strap. I am ashamed of that because as aQueenslander it gives me no joy to think that in 1957 the Government of this State had not repealedthose laws. They were the laws of the State of Queensland. The superintendent could gaol a personwithout trial, and with no right of appeal. At his discretion. he could gaol a person and put him on aregimen of bread and water for nine days. Unfortunately, a lot of misguided church people were givenapproval by the Government to remove children from their parents. On a number of reserves there areone and two generations, and in one very sad case, three generations of people whose parents havebeen removed from the reserves. They simply do not know who their parents were. This is ratherintriguing, because some eight of the reserve areas in fact were in this category. How we find out whoare the traditional owners of land is an intriguing question. Because the Government plucked peoplefrom the Torres Strait and sent them down to Palm Island, and plucked people off the street in MountIsa and Cloncurry and sent them in chains to Palm Island, we do not know where the hell those peoplecame 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 areKalkadoons, the Guyers, who are Kalkadoons, and part Torres Strait Islanders off Palm Island? Do theygo back to the Torres Strait and seize the Torres Strait islands?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! If the member for Maryborough wishes tointerject, 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 PartyGovernment came to power it repealed every single one of those laws. I was doing a trip with LesStewart and I was very surprised at his attitude because, quite frankly, I thought that he may have beena bit of an Uncle Tom. I saw that he had a very genuine commitment to the National Party. I said to


him, "Les, I am very surprised, because very few black people at this time have a commitment to theNational Party." He said, "You were too young to remember what it was like under a Labor Governmentin this State. I wasn't, because I was taken away as a little kid of eight from Camooweal and I neversaw 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 onPalm Island. Such things were done constantly under the laws of Queensland laid down by the LaborParty. Within 15 months of the Labor Party's re-election, it has taken ownership from the black peopleand taken it upon itself. Now it owns the land. If Aborigines trust anyone else to own their land, all I cansay 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 toreceive his own wages. He had to go along to the Department of Native Affairs agent, who was usuallythe 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. Blackpeople were banned from drinking. If a person had a mate who was black, and they had been outringing together or just finished a droving trip, the white person could go into the hotel but the blackperson 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 areeducated 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 weneed to prove a point to the Government, but within six months of the National Party Government'shanding over Yarrabah to the black people the ALP Labor Government in Canberra had taken half of itback again. That had an awful lot to do with the death of Peter Noble, who was then the chairman ofthe Yarrabah council. He somehow blamed himself because he could not figure out how theGovernment in Canberra had managed to thieve back half his land which he had owned since timeimmemorial. 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 workingout how we are going to decide who owns a place like Palm Island, for example. I pointed out that mostof the population of Palm Island comes from my own home area, the Kalkadoon area around Cloncurryand Mount Isa, and from the Torres Strait. There must be some traditional owners of Palm Island. Onecan imagine the sort of venomous infighting, racial squabbles and, if you like, tribal squabbles that willoccur on that island when the people who have lived there for three and four generations suddenly seethe right to their own home on Palm Island assailed by people who have probably not lived there fortwo or three generations. I am told that many of the original owners of Palm Island live in places suchas Cherbourg and Woorabinda.

Last year, the Australian of the Year, Professor Ted Fellows, appeared on television debating witha person who could be described as an Aboriginal activist. She said, "We will never be successful untilwe get back to the old laws. Our young people must be made to go back to the old laws." He said toher, "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 rocksin your head." That man is universally respected for his viewpoint. He was saying that the clock cannotbe turned back. If people are told that it can be turned back, they are being told lies. Thedemonstration 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 theAboriginal communities voted in elections to elect their various shire


council representatives. They spoke in a democracy and elected their representatives. Those electedbecame community councillors. In other areas, they would be called shire councillors. Those electedrepresentatives come together in a body called the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. That council istotally opposed to this legislation. The Government did not even have the sensitivity to say that itconsulted with the ACC. On the list of people with whom the Government said it consulted, the ACC isominously left off completely. In that regard, I refer to the letter that the ACC sent to Mr Goss. I do notknow whether the Government consulted or not. All I know is that the letter that the ACC chairman, MrMcLean, sent to Mr Goss stated that the ACC was never consulted. The Government's official directivethat 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 thoseareas? Who the hell did the Government consult with? I can tell the House who they consulted with, butI 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 andare people who could not be taken seriously in any society in this State, most certainly not in thesocieties 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 Governmentconsulted.

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 followedMick at one of the boarding schools in north Queensland. While at boarding school, he had tworeputations. 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 greatfootball-player. When I attended the school, he was greatly revered and admired. He was a legend anda hero. He saw the injustices of the Act that existed prior to 1957. When it was not popular to do so, hewent out into the streets and demonstrated. Quite frankly, people such as I despised him. We felt thathe was treacherous and traitorous to the people of Queensland. We did not understand what washappening. It was only later when we learned what was happening that Mick Miller became—and I saythis in all fairness to him, whatever his shortcomings might be—a hero. I asked him, "What is this landcouncil about?" His answer was, "Anybody who purports to represent a black person and who is actuallybeing 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 ofurban blacks who have a particular interest in the outcome of this Bill and in the welfare of Aboriginalpeople. Having listened to some of the earlier debate, I have to say that Aboriginal people will besomewhat disappointed by what has taken place in this Chamber. I guess it is true to say that, when itcomes to Aboriginal people, Queensland has a very poor track record. I do agree with one matter thatwas raised by the honourable member for Flinders, namely, that relating to the history of LaborGovernments in this State. I am embarrassed by the track record of Labor when it was in Governmentprior to 1957. It was a disgraceful record. In 1991, no Labor Party member can be proud of what theLabor Party did prior to 1957. To that extent, I agree with Mr Katter. However, neither can any personbe proud of what took place in this State between 1957 and 1989 under the National/Liberal Party andunder the National Party. For far too long, Aboriginal people in Queensland have been


political footballs. It is about time that we got away from the hysterical debate that was started by thehonourable 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 hesaid. On behalf of the National Party, along with the Liberal Party, he opposed the Bill. They haveopposed the concept of land rights. He said, "We cannot reverse the past." He refused to acknowledgeany guilt for what had happened. The genocide of Aboriginal people in Queensland and in other partsof Australia is a matter of shame for our whole society—for white society. I think that, in the soberingmoments 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 itwill never be totally removed. As a Parliament and as a Government, we need to do what we can togive 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. Quitefrankly, 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 thedemonstrations that have taken place outside this Parliament House. The point is that if any member ofthis House was part of a race that had been subjected to the genocide to which Aboriginal people havebeen subjected, he or she would have been standing outside protesting, too. Opposition memberscannot be proud of what they did during the past 32 years. I refer honourable members to the history ofwhite Europeans in this country and the history of the Irish, the Celts and the Scots. They have adopteda strong view in relation to what the English did to them in Great Britain. If any member of this Housewere an Aboriginal person, he or she would have been standing out there as well. Although I do notcondone 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 membersknow 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 andhumbugs. It is about time that they started considering what is important. Honourable members shouldnot lose sight of whom they are considering. They must not lose sight of the real issue, that is, thecircumstances that will assist Aboriginal people and do something to make up for what has happenedin the past.

During my preparation for this debate, I perused various publications. A statement that is worthrepeating for the benefit of National Party members appears on page 74 of Evan Whitton's book TheHillbilly 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 judgingthat giving Aborigines rights to sacred lands might interfere with 'development', anddisremembering his own plan to make Queensland a separate nation, he said in 1982 that theland 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 thecouncil was a sinister, Communist-led organisation."

That is an example of the intolerance that existed within the National Party. Let us not have any morehumbug. 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'spolitical 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 MrWhitlam'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


inaugural T. J. Ryan lecture, Gough Whitlam said—and I guess that this is really a response to theinterjection—

"Conservatives are hysterical over Aboriginal land rights particularly where the land containsdiamonds, 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 conservationpeople. During a speech that Mr Whitlam made in Cairns on 21 January 1977 to a land rightsconference of the North Queensland Land Rights Committee, he made some very important points thatI believe are relevant to this debate. He referred to the history of how this all developed. The following isthe 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 anyand endeavour by all proper means to initiate a friendship and alliance with them, makingthem presents of such trifles as they may value . . .You are also with the consent of the natives to take possession of convenient situations in thecountry 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 redressthat injustice. Many other countries including New Zealand and the United States recognised theland 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 Parliamentsince federation."

Later on in that address Mr Whitlam dealt with the Labor Party's proud record on this issue at theFederal 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 Ipledged that a Labor government would:

'Legislate to establish for land in Commonwealth territories which is reserved for Aboriginal useand benefit a system of Aboriginal tenure based on traditional rights of clan and other tribalgroups and under this legislation vest such land in Aboriginal communities.Establish an Aboriginal Land Fund to purchase or acquire land for significant continuingAboriginal 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 andestablishing the traditional land rights of Aborigines. He presented his final report in April 1974 andrecommended that Aboriginal land rights legislation should be introduced into the AustralianParliament and that it should not be capable of being affected by Northern Territory ordinances. Healso recommended that an Aboriginal Land Commission be established in the Territory to assistAborigines 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 finalpage of the transcript. Mr Whitlam said—

"We can put this country firmly back on the path of redressing two centuries of injustice andrepression."


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 settlementAborigines were regarded as trespassers and poachers in their own country. By the end of the thirdquarter of the 19th century Western European settlers had acquired in most parts of Australia, asin the US, Canada, and Argentina, all the land which they thought they could use for agriculturaland pastoral purposes, with titles and without compensation. In Western Australia and the NorthernTerritory the last police massacres occurred as recently as 1928. By 1960 there was renewedinterest in much of the land which only Aborigines occupied in Australia, whether or not whites heldtitle 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, pastoraland mineral lands would be jeopardised if the traditional rights of the continent's original inhabitantsare examined and recognised. The electoral laws of Queensland and Western Australia gavedominant 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 landrights themselves and the Aboriginal relationship with land. I do that because I was disappointed tohear the honourable member for Burnett question the whole concept of the necessity for land rights. Ofall the relationships that Aboriginal people have had, the most important is that which binds them to aparticular tract of land which is their country. That is a religious and spiritual bond. Even whenAborigines had been dispossessed of their land, they retained their sense of place. That affinity meansthat, without their land, they cannot be whole people. They need their land if they are to have their fulldignity, pride and social standing restored to them. The viability of an Aboriginal cultural identity isintegrally related to their association with the land. Land is also needed in the more accepted Westernsense as an economic base. Land with secure title will provide that base to the descendants of peoplewho once occupied all of Australia and will provide an element of compensation for land that cannotnow be returned.

Of all of the injustices that have been done to Aborigines, dispossession of their land is the lossthat they feel most keenly. For nearly 200 years, Aborigines have been dispossessed of their land andtheir identity. Recognition of the source of that cultural identity—that is, land—will contributesubstantially to the restoration of dignity and self-directed efforts to overcome ill health, poor educationand unemployment. The list goes on. A secure land base will make that effort easier. Governments willstill need to help, but Aborigines themselves will achieve the real improvement in the conditions of theirown lives.

A resurgence in Aboriginal pride, identity and independence has been the direct result of thegranting of land rights in other States and in the Northern Territory—that is the point that thehonourable member for Cunningham asked me about before. That is because secure title to land helpsto provide Aboriginal people with their social and economic base that was denied to them by thedispossession and dispersal that resulted from European occupation. Through recognition of Aboriginalinterests 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 theirhealth, social well-being and self-confidence. The granting of land means that Aboriginal people havecontrol over their lives—they can control access to their land, have the right to negotiate the terms andconditions upon which mining and other activities may proceed on their land, and are able to direct thespending of revenue raised from mining on their land for the benefit of the Aboriginal communitiesnegatively affected by that mining.

It is also notable that, in other States, there have been considerable benefits to non-Aboriginalpeople. In particular, the burgeoning tourist industry in the Northern Territory


and other States is heavily dependent on the Aboriginal cultural dimension. This year, I accompaniedthe Honourable Pat Comben on a visit to Kakadu—the honourable member for Cook was with me onthat trip—and had lengthy discussions with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. One can seeclearly what a significant benefit the granting of land rights has been to the Aboriginal people in theNorthern Territory. My only conclusion is that anyone who cannot see the benefit that comes directly toAboriginal 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. Aboriginalpeople 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 theirtraditions, life-style and living. As in many cultures, land was basic to the Aboriginal way of life. Landwas also the spiritual base of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal people have adapted to the changes in theirland in the past 200 years. To restore to them the right to control their own lives, their dignity and theirfreedom, their cultural base—that is, land—must in part be restored to them. That does not mean thatthe Aboriginal people will step back into the timeless world that they once inhabited. However, they willhave the opportunity to make decisions on an equal footing with all other Australians in accordance withtheir 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 asconfined to Aborigines. The maintenance of the oldest living culture in the world is a heritage that allQueenslanders can be proud of and benefit from. It is the diversity of the cultural composition ofQueensland society and the special place of Aboriginal culture within it that is one of Queensland'sunique and most valuable assets. Rather than attempting to subjugate and destroy the QueenslandAboriginal heritage and identity, we should respect it.

This legislation is based on that premise. The Aboriginal Land Bill is based on the premise that therecognition 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 andresponsibilities offers to Aboriginal people the hope of a basis upon which to shape a viable future forthemselves and their children. It is therefore crucial that the development and implementation of policyin relation to land enables Aboriginal people to have secure title to areas of land that are significant tothem and to manage the land and its resources in accordance with their own cultural values andobjectives. This does not imply that Aboriginal people will be frozen into traditional patterns of landusage. On the contrary, many Aboriginal people are interested in diverse forms of contemporary landuse. However, Aboriginal people, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, are responsible for thelandscape for which they hold custodial responsibilities. For this reason and because of the structure ofAboriginal society, negotiations can be complex and time-consuming. We have to be tolerant, and wehave to understand that.

The policy therefore provides for the exercise of considerable flexibility in the management of theland and its resources by its Aboriginal owners. The grant of land alone will not ensure the viability ofgroups or communities of Aboriginal people. There are many other factors that directly affect theviability of Aboriginal groups who gain access to land; and many Aboriginal people in Queensland willnot be in a position to make claims under this legislation. Even for those who do make successfulclaims, gaining rights to land is but one step, but it is of critical importance in restoring the viability of thegroup. Other policies will need to be developed to meet the needs and aspirations of Aboriginal groupsin a range of circumstances.

I conclude by saying that for too long Aboriginal people have been political footballs. It is abouttime that all parties in this Parliament put aside their disgraceful track records of the past and lookedfundamentally at what is important—Aboriginal people.


Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.32 p.m.): It is interesting to contrast the approach and style ofdebate adopted by the member for Flinders against that of the member for Yeronga. I was interestedto listen to the member for Flinders. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fassifern, who is theleader of Opposition business in this House, the late Doug Jennings, who was the former member forSouthport, the former member for Toowoomba North, Sandy McPhie, and I were all members of BobKatter's committee when he was the Minister. In my opinion he did a tremendous job under very difficultcircumstances. At that time he was being undermined by the then director of Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. Every time he tried to do something, departmental people went to the Premier via the back doorand undermined what he was doing.

It was fortunate that Mr Katter had people of the calibre of Doug Jennings on his committee. Allmembers who knew Doug over the years and worked with him realised what an outstandingly strongperson he was. No member on either side of politics would argue with that fact. Doug displayed thatcourage in Victoria when he was a member of that State's Parliament. He brought down the VictorianGovernment at that time because of its association with land deals. He threatened the Premier ofVictoria that, if he did not do something about the matter and move against those responsible, Dougwould 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 seatof 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 wouldnever win the seat, but he did. People saw him for what he was. He was a tower of strength when heworked on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander committee with us, as were many other memberswho 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 andhard over how we should handle the Aboriginal land problem. None of us was satisfied with the oldsystem. We all felt it was decades out of date and needed updating. As a result, the deed of grant intrust legislation was developed. As Bob indicated in this House today, many people in Aboriginalcommunities would have liked us to go further. They had the opportunity to have an input into thatlegislation and they understood what we were trying to do. Bob Katter had the total respect of theAboriginal community. Members witnessed it here the other day. I was down there with him at thedemonstration, as was the Opposition spokesman, Mr Doug Slack, the member for Burnett. Bob wasnot there trying to incite the Aboriginal people to violence. Anyone who saw what happened wouldknow only too well what it was all about. Bob Katter liaised with the Minister and the Aboriginal peopleat 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 theparliamentary quadrangle where no-one could get to him and then he bucketed the Aboriginal peopleon 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 ofgrant legislation the thrust of the National Party—in spite of vitriolic attack from various quarters at thetime—was to ensure that those people were responsible for their own destiny. They had responsibilityfor their own land. They could take over and ensure its viability. There are many examples of peoplewho have done exactly that and have successfully run cattle on the land. Another good example is theTorres Strait fishing cooperative that formerly lost hundreds of thousands of dollars—perhaps millions ofdollars. When the National Party Government introduced deeds of grant in trust, it began to make aprofit. The significant difference in the approach adopted by the National Party was that, for the firsttime in the history of the Aboriginal and Islander people, they were made to feel that someone actuallybelieved in them and wanted to hand them control of their destiny and their businesses. ThisGovernment will have some bureaucrat or ministerial adviser looking over their shoulder and tellingthem what to do.

A Government member: You're a hypocrite.


Mr ELLIOTT: Unfortunately, members of the Labor Government are hypocrites. Before themember for Yeronga was elected to this Parliament, I used to see him on television. I have been amember of Parliament for a reasonable period and after he became a member of Parliament, I beganto wonder what type of fellow he is. He always seemed to be standing up for the downtrodden, but Iwould 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 forFlinders. If I were she, I would stick to my own electorate and worry about the masthead race and a fewother problems in her area. It was interesting that not only did the member for Yeronga pontificate andwaffle on, but also he was not able to say in 20 minutes what he wanted to say. In an ultimate displayof arrogance, he moved for an extension of time. In my 17 years as a member of Parliament, I havenever seen a member do that before. I am amazed that a person of his reputation and backgrounddoes not better understand what is happening in this House. I thought he would stand up and becounted and resist this legislation that will turn back the clock. This legislation places a heavy onus onthe Minister. To the Minister's credit, I believe that she does not have her heart in it. She has been toldby 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 wouldbe taken to convert their land holdings to freehold title. This legislation turns back the clock. I invite theMinister to refer to clause 3.02 and then tell me that this legislation does not turn back the clock. Theprevious Government's approach provided Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders with a betterarrangement. When the member for Flinders, Bob Katter, was the Minister for Northern Developmentand Community Services, he was making progress in ensuring that Aboriginal communities would havecontrol over their own destinies. This Government has turned back the clock by reverting control to thedepartment.

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 aboutthis matter is the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. He has travelledextensively throughout the communities and has tried to do something positive. He knows how difficultit is to bring about improvement. Another member who would know something about the problems isthe member for Barambah because he, together with the member for Townsville, accompanied thechairman on most of his visits to Aboriginal communities. People such as the member for Yeronga wholive 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 socialworker. Do you withdraw that remark?

Mr ELLIOTT: That is very commendable and I am pleased to hear it. Unfortunately, theOpposition's disappointment in you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—has come


about since you became a member of this Parliament. The honourable member has become a tamecat 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 inthis legislation—that by introducing this legislation members of the Labor Party have turned back theclock. The Minister is not advancing the cause of Aborigines and Islanders at all. The Minister hasduped them. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have demonstrated their displeasure anddisappointment at the broken promises of this Government. Although I do not support the action takenby Aboriginal groups yesterday in the parliamentary precinct, it was hardly surprising that they acted inthat way. I found it abhorrent and I do not believe they advanced their cause. In fact, I believe it was adreadful mistake. What I am saying is that the Labor members of this Parliament are not advancing thecause of Aboriginal and Islander people who were better off under deeds of grant in trust. I do not wishto take up any more time of the House. Most of the points that I wanted to raise have already beenraised by the very capable Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Flinders and otherspeakers.

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (4.45 p.m.): In February of this year, the Federal Minister for AboriginalAffairs, Mr Tickner, released a discussion paper entitled Aboriginal Reconciliation. This discussion paperproposed a strategy for achieving reconciliation and social justice for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander 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 ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by European settlers and their descendants. Thediscussion 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 muchAboriginal culture needs to be recognised as a primary cause of the current disadvantaged positionof Australia's indigenous peoples."

All Australians need to understand this country's past and the place of Aboriginal people in it. Thediscussion paper continued—

"This would have the objective of not creating guilt but of building compassion and empathyfor Aboriginal people and their disadvantaged position in society, as well as appreciation ofAboriginal culture and achievements and the unique position of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people as indigenous people of this continent."

It is significant that Commissioner Johnston, QC, in the final volume of his report of the RoyalCommission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, concluded with a chapter on the process ofreconciliation. His final recommendation 339 reads—

". . . that all political leaders and their parties recognise that reconciliation between the Aboriginaland non Aboriginal communities in Australia must be achieved if community division, discord andinjustice to Aboriginal people are to be avoided."

I believe that the legislation being debated today is a vital part of that reconciliation process inQueensland. This may seem a brave or, indeed, foolish thing to say in the light of the strong negativereaction on the part of some Aboriginal and Islander people


to this legislation that we are debating today and of the demonstrations that we have witnessed outsidethis House. But events are frequently interpreted differently with hindsight. Reform that is difficult todiscern in the emotionally charged atmosphere of today will, I believe, be very clear when the history ofthe Queensland land rights legislation is written. The Bill before the House represents a fundamentalchange of direction with respect to land rights policy that will enable Queensland legislation to accordmore closely with that of the Commonwealth model which is widely respected and which follows therecommendations of Commissioner Johnston, QC. Again, that recommendation reads—

". . . that in all jurisdictions legislation should be introduced where this is not already occurring toprovide a comprehensive means to address lands needs of Aboriginal people. Such legislationshould encompass a process for restoring unalienated Crown land to those Aboriginal people whoclaim 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 existsbetween Aboriginal people and their land. The final trustees of the DOGIT and reserve lands will bethose who have demonstrated and acknowledged traditional or historical affiliation with that land. Themember for Flinders was most mischievous in misleading people by suggesting that it was going to beheld by the Crown. The legislation also provides for the recognition that traditional ownership entailtraditional responsibilities to the land. This legislation therefore validates a conception of the relationshipof 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 traditionalAboriginal life are best cared for and preserved by the Aboriginal owners living nearby them andcarrying out the ceremonies for them. In fact, it has been suggested—I agree with the suggestion—thatall other aspects of welfare of Aboriginal society depend on this. The legacy of the last Governmentprovides for a form of representative democracy on communities which is totally foreign to traditionalAborigines and which has demonstrably failed—and I do not say that lightly. Ask the victims of violenceon Aboriginal communities and they will confirm my assessment, as does the report of the PublicAccounts Committee. It is a failure because it is based on an assimilation model that has always beenthe policy of the National Party and which this Government rejects totally.

The present situation in communities on Cape York reflects the fact that traditional authoritystructures no longer exist, and many of the problems being experienced in those communities can beseen to be related in large measure to the break-down of such traditional authority and the underminingof any meaningful role for men in those communities in the context of traditional Aboriginal society. Theso-called deed of grant in trust legislation also falls short of the inalienable freehold title desired byAborigines and which is delivered by this legislation. In addition, we have heard how it ensures thattimber and quarry rights will be included, something that was promised but not delivered by the previousGovernment. Also delivered by this legislation are mining royalties which have never been available toAboriginal communities before, despite the dispossession of their land that they have suffered at thehands of mining companies. Ask the people at Mapoon who had to watch as their homes were burnt tomake way for mining.

This legislation also provides for something that the previous Government would never haveconsidered—a mechanism whereby land can actually be claimed as opposed be given at Governmentwhim. The previous Government never recognised the legitimate right of Aboriginal people—indigenouspeople—to make any such claim to land. Moreover, Queensland will lead the way in providing acomprehensive set of three criteria for Aboriginal people to advance their interest in land. Those aredescribed 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


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 myelectorate of Barron River. The Mossman River and Daintree Valley area was occupied by the KukuYalanja people when European settlement began. Their experiences at the hands of white people weresimilar to those of Aborigines everywhere: forced removal to reserves and missions with subsequentloss of traditional hunting and camping grounds, employment for rations, and forced removal to thepenal colony of Palm Island for any minor offence. Eileen McNamara, the matriarch of the MossmanGorge 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 thecamp and grab any half cast children they find and take them away. We would never see themagain. Why they do that to us???' The women would have special large dilly-bags handy all thetime. When the police came to camp they would either flee to the bush or hide their little onesinside 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 inthe Mossman Gorge. No longer will they live in fear of removal by Government decree, as they do atpresent. In addition, they will be able to gain title to the Daintree national park, which surrounds themand which contains many sacred sites. It will therefore facilitate cultural revival of the Kuku Yalanjipeople. There are many elders who are sustained only by the hope of regaining their land, and, as theyhave 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 Gorgecommunity, the demonstrations outside this Parliament are testament to the dissatisfaction of otherAboriginal groups with this legislation. I must make mention of that. Members on the Government sideare well aware of the additional elements that some Aborigines would have liked to have seen in theGovernment's land rights package. The proposal for a land acquisition fund derived from State land taxand a veto on mining on Aboriginal land are just two such elements. Given the philosophical andideological commitment of members of the Government to land rights, it is reasonable to ask why thesethings could not be delivered.

To explain, it is necessary to remind honourable members of the process of reconciliation to which Ireferred at the outset. The fundamental aspect of this process involves a coordinated campaign to buildbetter bridges of understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. I am sad to saythat an examination of the bridges of understanding in far-north Queensland would reveal very shakystructures indeed. For example, last year, two hotels in Mareeba consistently refused to serveAboriginal 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 issuea 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 asjust one example amongst many to illustrate the sad state of race relations in far-north Queenslandand, 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 liketo see delivered would only divide the Queensland community in a way that would put back black/whiterelations for years. Already, too many Queenslanders seem to believe that Aboriginal people have toomany privileges, despite the fact that they are the most disadvantaged members of the community onany indicators—housing, health, education or employment. I believe that that is a legacy of NationalParty brainwashing. The divisiveness, anger and even hatred that would be


stirred up by more radical reform would be totally counter-productive to the Government's aim of socialjustice for Aboriginal people. Indeed, I believe that the opposition would be so great that our attemptsat reform would be swept away by the Nationals as the people of Queensland would return them tooffice on the platform of repealing such land rights legislation, so completely has the National Partypropaganda succeeded.

Although the Government can legislate to prohibit and punish racial discrimination, it cannotlegislate for a change of attitudes whereby non-Aborigines will respect and value Aboriginal people andtheir 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 spirituallyrich culture, which has occupied this land for in excess of 40 000 years. I ask that Aboriginal people putaside their anger and work with the Government on building those bridges between themselves and thenon-Aboriginal community, because the sooner those bonds of respect and friendship are formed, thesooner 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. Itis ironic that the leadership of the conservation movement has indicated very clearly their support forthis land rights legislation. In a letter to the Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette, the campaignmanager for the ACF, Mark Horstman, stated—

"This principles of hand-back, lease-back and joint management are appropriate because theyreflect sound conservation management practices where environmental objectives are kept pre-eminent. They also meet the aspirations of Aboriginal people to preserve Aboriginal cultural valuesand address the imperatives of social justice."

Unfortunately, those sentiments are not echoed by the grassroots members of conservation groups inQueensland and, in particular, far-north Queensland. I am deeply disappointed in some of my ownfriends on this issue. I respect their commitment to nature conservation, but it saddens me that theycannot embrace land rights for Aboriginal people as an act of social justice and recognise that landrights can go hand in hand with nature conservation.

The Cairns branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society appears to operate on the premise thatconservation of natural areas is incompatible with their utilisation by Aboriginal people. The evidencefrom around the world says otherwise. In America, Canada and Africa there are countless examples ofindigenous people exercising their traditional rights without jeopardising conservation values of nationalpark areas. For many years, the Queensland Government has lagged behind in involving Aboriginalpeople in management of nature conservation areas. This Government has carefully studied theNorthern Territory model of joint management in parks such as Kakadu and Uluru before coming to theconclusion that such an arrangement could work in Queensland without detracting from or impairing thenatural 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 thegranting of any national park land, which must be leased back to the Crown in perpetuity and thenmanaged under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1975. A management plan will reflect Aboriginalinterests, and the legislation requires that the director must consult with Aboriginal people and appointAborigines to the board of management. Thus there will be a cooperative partnership between theDepartment of Environment and Heritage and Aboriginal communities that have claimed national parkson 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 wholesaleslaughter 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 conservationand management of our parks. Neither will our parks be locked up and used exclusively by Aboriginalpeople, as some would claim, because the legislation ensures that there will be no decrease in theaggregate of the public rights that existed in relation to the national park land


immediately before the land became claimable. However, because of their spiritual/religioussignificance, certain areas may have restricted access, just as access is now restricted to some areason 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 moreclosely 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 ofsome Aboriginal people as it can of white people, and there is no doubt that careful monitoring ofmanagement practices will be required. However, the employment of increasing numbers of Aboriginalrangers will allow, subject to the management plans of that area, for the appropriate managementpractices 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 wasinscribed on the World Heritage area, because one of them was that the area should "be anoutstanding example of a traditional human settlement which is representative of a culture and whichhas become vulnerable to the impact of irreversible change". That criterion was one of the four that wasrecognised when the wet tropics was inscribed on the World Heritage area; the culture of the rainforestpeople is one of the reasons why the wet tropics was listed. I concur with the Minister for Environmentand Heritage when he said that our national parks will be enriched by the contribution that Aboriginalpeople will make and the interpretation of our parks will be able to reveal to people another wholedimension 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 yearsa lie and it is important for you the listener because like it or not we are part of you. We have to finda way of living together in this country that would not only come when our hearts, minds and willsare set towards reconciliation and it will only come when thousands of stories have been spokenand listened to with understanding."

While there may be uncertainty in some minds and hearts, I believe that the much neededreconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples will occur and that this legislation is a steptowards that much needed reconciliation.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (4.03 p.m.): This land rights issue really came like a bolt out of the blueearlier this year, despite the gossip that, because he did not want to have anything to do with theabortion issue, Mr Goss was making a trade with the socialist Left and was doing the land rights issueinstead. I do not believe that. I think the abortion issue is still on the agenda. This legislation has comeforward very quickly onto the business sheet; the unseemly haste of the process has probably unsettleda lot of people. In the wash-up, when this Bill becomes and Act of Parliament a lot of people will be leftcogitating on where they stand and whether or not they are pleased. At the moment not many peopleseem to be pleased. There was no consultation with those people who are most concerned about thislegislation. Over quite a period of time I have known that, when it comes to the Opposition andAborigines, the Minister's favourite word is "paternalistic". That word is always being hurled across theChamber, but I would have to say that I think this legislation leaves the Government wide open to beingaccused of being very maternalistic, in fact to the point where, if she is not careful, the Minister'snickname will probably become "Mumma" Anne—although I do know that the Minister has not had agreat deal to do with this legislation and that "boss" Goss has been the one who has been handling thewhole show. In fact, it has been very cleverly handled by Mr Goss, who has stood firm against therioters in the street and has gained the kudos of the average Labor worker, who is not too keen on thisland rights issue, anyway.

Mr Littleproud: Mrs Warner has been left to carry the bucket.


Mrs McCAULEY: Yes, she has, and that is very unfortunate. It is a slight that I would not be veryhappy with. I wish to register my disgust at the protests that were held yesterday and last week. I wasoutraged at the desecration of the Queensland and the Australian flags and I have to say very stronglythat that is no way to get a message across. I had hoped never to see a demonstration such as thatoutside Parliament, and I am upset that the flag that my father and grandfather fought for was hurleddown in such an unceremonious manner. I think that when a lot of people learn about this from itshaving been on the television last night, they will also be upset at this sort of action. Dignity, respectand esteem must be earned. They just will not be given to rabble, to drunks, or to layabouts who arepaid 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 isa point of justice. They need to move on from the present hand-out mentality, which works againstthem. Even though some Aborigines may welcome it and feel that the Government is looking afterthem, I think most Aborigines resent it. Certainly a resentment has built up among white people fromseeing black people being given things that white people do not have or cannot get easily. There is aresentment on both sides.

I understand and accept that the development of self-esteem for Aboriginal people is tied to landrights. From increased self-esteem the Aborigines will be able to determine their own future—or that isthe theory, anyway. They will be able to free themselves from handouts; they will be able to run theirown 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 alltheory and we will not really know until we are a long way down the track. When I look at what thewomen councillors in Aurukun are trying to do—and it is something that I follow with great interest—Iask: are they going to win this battle against the grog in that community or are they not? We will haveto wait and see. I really hope that they do. I believe strongly that the women will be the saviours of theAboriginal race. They are the strong ones. I hope very much that the women of Aurukun are successfulin their endeavours. All of this needs time—time for careful and thoughtful consultation. That issomething that has been lacking totally in this entire issue. On 23 February this year, when speakingabout land rights Mr Goss said—

"It's going to be a long road. It will be a course of consultation. We have to balance otherclaims. We have to accept the interest of miners, the environment, tourism, grazing . . . all the restof these things."

I know that he has spoken to people who represent those interests but he has not spoken to theAborigines. 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 withsomething."

Then he did not give them a chance to come up with anything. How strange! Historically, the Aboriginesare a fragmented tribal people, not a single nation. They have never been a single nation; they havealways been different groups, often fighting amongst themselves. Therefore, they need time to consulttheir own communities, to formulate plans, to listen to all the Aborigines and to get their act together sothat they can have input. They have been denied that. In fact, it was shown that, in hindsight, what theAmerican 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.


Mrs McCAULEY: Yes. The Aborigines also have a different sense of time and place. I think a bitof education will help white people accept that. Aboriginals have a cultural slowness, if you like, in thattime is not as important to them as it is to others. We accept Japanese and other overseas visitors toour country and we try to understand their culture. We have to learn to do the same thing with blackculture in this country. I think that is important. Recently, the Opposition spokesman, Mr Slack, and Ivisited the Woorabinda community and saw the program that it is undertaking. It was a very interestingday indeed. That community has a program under which people work for the dole. All the dole money ispooled 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 everyday of the week, not just for one or two days and then sit around for the other three. That is somethingthat 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 thatsufficient time was available to listen to the Aboriginals' requirements. Sufficient time should have beenallowed 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 ofmutual agreement is to be reached, great compromises have to be made by both sides. By notconsulting with the Aboriginal people, the Government has upset everybody. In this whole issue there isa great need to avoid the middleman and to hear the wants of all Aboriginals, not just those with a highprofile such as the Mansells and others who motives are rather questionable, anyway. There alsoneeds to be in place a proper administration that allows all Aboriginals to benefit and thus avoid thesituation that occurred in America, where the records clearly show that US Government agents andsome Indians pocketed the funds appropriated by the Government for Indians' use and drove the restto starvation. We need to avoid what happened in New Zealand. Maori Tina Nixon said about theMaoris—

"Their claim for rights, while not baseless, have been exaggerated to a point where moneyand wealth and not the establishment of the ancient spirit, have become the key motivators . . . aframework for racial intolerance has been erected . . . those who seek to claim back fishing rightsand land ownership are not doing it for the betterment of Maori people but to set up a concretepower 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 anyother country where measures have been taken to protect the interest of one particular group. Theend 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 shouldaim to protect all Aborigines and so ensure that the majority benefit, and it should maintain credibility innon-black people's eyes. That cannot be done without allowing time in which the true representatives ofthe Queensland Aborigines, not those of the Minister's choosing, can come forward. I think the mostoutrageous, maternalistic


attitude or action that has ever been taken with regard to Aboriginal people is that the Minister will nowdecide 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 consultwith people enshrined in the legislation.

Mrs McCAULEY: But the Minister has the say, and that is the bottom line. The important thingthat Aboriginals need to realise is that education is a large key to the problems that face them. Thesooner Aborigines realise that knowledge is power and that education will get them a long way downthe track that they are trying to travel, the sooner they will get there. Education is very important. That iswhy it is a shame that in places such as Aurukun only 35 of 200 children eligible to attend schoolactually do so. While they have that attitude towards education, be it education in their way oreducation in our way, they will never advance themselves. The sooner that they realise that knowledgeis power, the better. As a member of Parliament, it did not take me long to realise that knowledge ispower.

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 weregranted. He said also that it would be a bit of a disaster, with some Aboriginals wanting to sell andothers not. This legislation will not allow that land to be sold. As I understand it, that inalienable freeholdland will not be allowed to be sold. I am pleased about that, because the ability to sell could lead tomany problems. I cite the example of the American Indians. The policy of freeholding to the Indians inAmerica was eventually abandoned, because too many Indians simply sold up their land and wereseen 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 landrights claim. The National Party has always believed that deeds of grant in trust were the way to go andseemed 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 StateGovernment hand-outs to Aboriginal people. If we follow that track, we will all be losers. Despite theseeming superiority of New Zealand in race-related matters, it has failed to prevent the development ofa growing disaffection amongst the Maori people. In common with many other countries, New Zealandfinds itself with a separatist ethnic movement which, if its more extreme elements had their way, wouldtear the country apart. I sincerely hope that we can avoid going down that track. Much cynicism existsabout the proposal that Aboriginals want their own country financially supported by white Australia bymeans of past rental payments. Many white people feel that the only sacred sites are those thatcontain rich mineral deposits or tourist attractions. Many people have a sneaking feeling that thesacredness of a site comes from economic rather than ritualistic reasons. I believe that the issue of landrights 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 theproblem 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 ofAborigines 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 MargaretReynolds' attitude towards this land rights Bill. The article stated—

"A Queensland Labor senator wants a land acquisition fund built in to the state Aboriginal landrights package which could now end up before the United Nations."


I do not agree with Senator Reynolds on that issue. I certainly do not agree that Queensland's orAustralia'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 toreporting 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 agreewith Senator Reynolds that we should provide funding for acquisitions, and I certainly do not agree thatthis issue should be referred to the United Nations. Although the Opposition disagrees with this Billbecause it is maternalistic or paternalistic, the biggest problem is lack of consultation, which could havebeen undertaken carefully and properly, but was not.

Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (5.20 p.m.): This Bill is about recognition by this Government that, forthe first time, Aboriginal people in Queensland can secure title to particular categories of land. Thosecategories have been spelt out. They include the DOGIT areas, to which members opposite havereferred tediously and at length. Later in my speech, I will address those issues. Mention has also beenmade of making available Mornington Island and Aurukun Shire leases, Aboriginal reserves, vacantCrown land and national park land. The important aspect of this Bill is that it puts Aboriginal people in aposition in which they can exercise control over the use and management of that land according toAboriginal tradition.

Members should make no mistake; this is a very important social reform. The longer that I sit in thisHouse, the more I realise how important it is. It has not been easy to get this Bill to this stage in theParliament. Aboriginal people have argued—rightly, in my view, and in the view of many people—thatthis Bill does not go far enough. That is a matter of record that has been well canvassed. I realise howdifficult it is to have a focus of reform in Queensland. When introducing far-reaching social legislation inQueensland, one must develop principles that people are prepared to accept. From what I have heardof the mouthings of Opposition members, unfortunately—and, I believe, without exception—land rightsreform and the delivery of justice are not part of their agenda. I could speak about what some of themembers opposite said. They focused on two areas. They focused principally on an argument about alack of consultation, and they also concerned themselves with the power of the Minister to appointtrustees, which is referred to in clause 3.02. The eight or so speakers opposite seem to have spent theentire 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 onthis 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 interestedin any real form of land rights for Aboriginal people in Queensland. When one listens to what membersopposite have said in this House, one sees that that becomes more and more obvious. The shadowMinister had a pathetic, illogical argument. He talked about the need for consultation. However, it was adeceitful argument, because he focused on those matters. That is what he was on about. He reallywanted to slow things down. Then he focused on the deed of grant in trust areas and about howimportant, how apparently acceptable and how successful that deed of grant in trust legislation was. Hedescribed it as pioneering legislation. However, social change has occurred in Queensland. We aremoving 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 communitiesin Queensland. The shadow Minister focused his argument on the deed of grant in trust legislation. Iwould be absolutely surprised if he had read the most recent report on the financial administration ofAboriginal and Islander councils; that is the second report of the Public Accounts Committee. If he hadread that report, he


would have seen and read some of the problems that are particularly concerned with the operation ofthe deed of grant in trust areas in Queensland. As a matter of fact, that report set out the fundamentalsof what the appropriate structure should be.

That leads to the second point on which many of the speakers opposite focused. They said thatthe matter of the Minister being allowed to appoint trustees is not on and that it is not fair. In relation towhat should happen—they say that, immediately, the existing elected people in the deed of grant intrust areas should be responsible. I do not believe that Opposition members have made any attempt toread 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 asthat. 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 thatthey managed to drag out. They referred to hidden agendas. That usually comes to the fore. Then theyreferred to real concern and then expected concern.

The member for Landsborough said absolutely nothing. It was the usual non-performance that shegives in this Parliament. However, it was worse than that, because it was glib and it was bigoted. Weare talking about human beings. As I say, it was bigoted. That is awful, and it is a terrible reflectionupon the honourable member.

Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. I take personal offence at the comment of the memberthat "it was bigoted". I am not a bigoted person, nor was that reflected in the speech. I ask him towithdraw 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 oppositeuse the term "consultation" to confuse, divide and frustrate. This is an absolutely pivotal clause of theBill that allows the Minister to appoint the trustees for the benefit of Aboriginal people, to consult and toact 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 heardmembers opposite speak, the more I became convinced that they did not really know what the deed ofgrant in trust communities are or anything about such communities. For the information of membersopposite, I point out that there are 14 such deed of grant in trust communities in Queensland. In manycases, those communities comprise complex societies. They comprise residents who come from varioustribal backgrounds. It is very important to understand that. It is fundamental to understand that. Peoplehave been gathered into those settlements. In many cases—in most cases—they did not comebecause 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, alegitimacy——

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


does not exist. In north Queensland and in the northern peninsula areas, in the main, local people—forwant of a better word—are involved in the composition of the communities. Nevertheless, it wasnoted—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 toeach other."

That is what members opposite have failed to understand; it is absolutely pivotal to this legislation. Thelegislation allows the Minister to appoint trustees within those guidelines. I refer National Party speakersand the one speaker from the Liberal Party to page 15 of the same report. It provides a very interestinganalysis and sets out the 14 deed of grant in trust communities. It provides a simple summary—for themembers opposite and for many other people—of the history of each of those communities. This isvery important legislation. It is at the forefront of Queensland's social agenda, and I would have thoughtthat members opposite could have taken some time to look at the very clear, concise and preciseanalysis contained in the report.

When discussing DOGIT areas it must be understood that they are unique communities. Membersopposite reflected on how important these DOGIT areas are and how important it seems to be to themthat the elected people should automatically be the ones who are trustees over land claims. Not only isthere a problem regarding the structure, constitution and running of DOGIT areas, but also there isanother problem which I think some members opposite would be aware of, although none of themembers who have spoken this afternoon referred to it. That problem is the lack of control on the partof Aboriginal people over DOGIT land. This is emphasised by the excisions of the land. There is a termthat is being used more and more commonly in Queensland, that is, that in many cases these DOGITlands form a patchwork quilt. This legislation removes that patchwork quilt by transferring title of all suchland to Aboriginal people. It principally recognises that from now on the people have total control of theland—which is so important for them—within the DOGIT area so that they can exhibit and understandwhat control is all about in the DOGIT communities.

If honourable members opposite had read the material, I would have had to say that theirspeeches were devious or deceitful. However, I assume that most of them have not read the materialand that it must be explained to them that they are operating purely on ignorance. These DOGIT areasare artificial structures which have been cobbled together. The point I want to make is very important. Iam trying to put it into the context of the country towns that members opposite represent. When onetalks about DOGIT areas, one is not talking about some country town in an electorate. Thesecommunities have been moulded together over the last 30 years and Governments have placed—asillustrated 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 ofmembers opposite have depended so much upon—is that they are artificial creations. It is important tounderstand that, but, worse than that, they are the result of policies of segregation, racism and otherreally awful things—as if those first two policies are not awful enough—such as social control andcultural denial. That members opposite should come in here and argue that those DOGIT areas havesome legitimacy is an absolute disgrace. They deny the reality of Aboriginal cultural forms, the wayAboriginal society actually functions. In addition, we imposed a system of white man's local governmentin the DOGIT communities and tried to develop a notion of community, as in the case of the white townin an electorate that I referred to previously. That notion of community may not be generally valid forAboriginal communities.


This Bill is very important. This afternoon I have been greatly concerned to hear the sorts ofcomments coming from members opposite. They focused on only two areas; I believe they focusedwrongly and perhaps mischievously on those two areas. There are some very important things to comeout of this legislation, so this afternoon I want to take a short time to emphasise how absolutelyimperative it is that the Minister has the power to appoint trustees so that the real power structures canbe recognised. That opportunity is presented to the Minister to recognise and understand what is beingsaid. This Bill is all about consulting and considering the views. It is a very unique process, but that iswhat it is all about. It is all about exercising this power as far as practicable and exercising it in a waythat 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 todo—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 inmany 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 existingpower structure is not appropriate for identifying the legitimate, traditional owners of the land. Thematter is as simple as that. I believe this Bill makes it clear that Aborigines who live in thecommunities—the people with whom the Minister can consult; in other words, the people who livethere—are the people who should know, and do know, who ought to hold the land. That matter can besorted out, but the point I am trying to make is that in many DOGIT areas, those people will notnecessarily be members of the elected councils. The strength of the provision is very important becauseit enables the Minister to identify the real owners who are acknowledged by the community to be thereal 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 thisParliament 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 theOpposition were trying to argue against that important element of flexibility, but it is critical to theoperation of this Bill. It is not the case, as some members have said, that this legislation will be animposition. It gives the Minister scope to identify the legitimate owners and, importantly, to restore theirstatus within Aboriginal society through the traditional owners' acknowledged leaders. It is important thatthe 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 bymembers 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 interestedin filibustering, fooling around, mucking about and generally kicking up a fuss. They do not believe inland rights or in anything to do with land rights. They suggest that the Government revert to the DOGITareas. Members of the Government have demonstrated clearly that the system of the title going toelected people in DOGIT areas is inappropriate. Members of the Opposition are trying to argue that it isappropriate. 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 isundoubtedly the winner of the scruffy award for Parliament. I believe he is a professional man, yet hisability 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.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! I ask the member for Sherwood to speak to theBill.

Mr DUNWORTH: Firstly, the Bill bears all the hallmarks of another Labor "triumph". It wasintroduced 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 noticedthat 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 isproceeding. The haste effectively denies proper participation and adequate consultation to allparties concerned.

I remind you of Mr Tony Fitzgerald's words that'Information is the lynchpin of the political process. Knowledge is, quite literally, power. Ifthe 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 ofurban Aboriginal people and therefore may divide the Aboriginal community. Deliberate division ofa 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 Laborpolicy at the 33rd State Conference of the Labor Party and would comply with the spirit of theFitzgerald Commission Report."

The local priest is Father Gerry Hefferan, who has dealt and lived with Aboriginal people for aconsiderable period.

I turn now to consider the other hallmarks of this Bill, which has caused total confusion and divisionwithin the Queensland community.

Dr Flynn: Have you been a member of the Liberal Party long enough to formulate a policy on thisissue?

Mr DUNWORTH: When the member earns my respect, I will answer him. This Bill has alsobrought about anger, frustration, and betrayal of Labor Party principles, policies and members. It hascreated opportunism on the part of the Premier and the complete subjugation of the Socialist Leftfaction by the Premier's power base, the AWU. Violent attacks have been made on the symbolic heartof our democratic system. This House has been turned into a battleground and an arena for theutterance of obscenities at and about this Government. This Parliament has been the scene ofviolence, vandalism and the desecration of our national flag. Above anything that is regarded as asacred site by the people of Queensland stands this House of Parliament. Nothing is a more sacredsymbol 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 anddeliver.

I will spend the remainder of my time commenting on the ramifications of this Bill for nationalparks.It was interesting to hear from the Minister for Environment and Heritage. I believe that officers ofhis department refer to him—not in a mean manner—as "jungle", because he is a little bit dense andgreen.

Mr Coomber: Thick and dense.


Mr DUNWORTH: I accept that interjection. The Minister spoke in glowing terms regarding thislegislation, 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, hasdisinherited the people. He is hard to blame, as he knows not what he does. He is amicable butblundering. He obviously had not spoken to his officers, to conservation groups or the National ParksAssociation—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 nationalparks. National parks are defined as relatively large areas of land set aside in public ownership topreserve outstanding features of our natural and cultural heritage and to provide opportunities fornature-based recreation. The cardinal principle of management of national parks is permanentpreservation, to the greatest possible extent, of their natural condition. There is a fundamentalcontradiction in terms in this Bill. National parks cannot be owned by any individual or groups ofindividuals. If the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs had spoken to the National ParksAssociation of Queensland and to other groups such as the Wildlife Preservation Society ofQueensland, she would have realised the opposition to this Bill of a vast array of groups. A letter dated26 May 1991 from the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland stated—

"The dilution of National Parks legislation which ensures the protection of their naturalcondition from all human interference, is no more acceptable to accommodate Aboriginal landrights aspirations, than it was under the previous Recreation Areas Management (R.A.M.) Actdesigned to allow for commercial exploitation of National Parks.

There is a certainty of emotional reaction against interference with these public lands. Thetiming, targets and intensity of that emotion cannot be forecast, and it may not occur until incidentsare 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 sharethese 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 havebeen preservation areas since 1908.

b. Queensland parks have been extracted from a reluctant Crown and then guarded bycommunity pressure, sometimes of heroic proportions.

c. The financial resources used to manage N. T. Parks are many times those available tomanage a Qld. park. In particular, problems are bombarded with experts and money whenthey appear in the N. T."


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 saythat Aborigines will never harm National Parks is to repeat the sort of propaganda that says thatsoil degradation cannot be widespread because farmers depend on the soil, or that logginginterests 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, NationalParks are not social experiment sites any more than they are potential resort real estate or forcommercial 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 notfurther scar the landscape (eg. with vehicle tracks, rubbish, encampments or mistakes with fire) andallows appropriate visitation by anyone, then that land may fairly be included within the promise toincrease total area of National Parks. It may include land excised from existing National Parkswhich had originally been included as buffer zones or for administrative convenience, particularly ifthat land is in exchange for new National Parks elsewhere. It may include some land claimed forfuture 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 aNational Park and then a contest with objectors is divisive and the Wildlife Preservation Society ofQueensland regards Aboriginal land rights and National Parks usage as separate issues, and wesupport the thrust of the National Parks Association policy on this matter, as the only tenable standfor 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 beforeconservation became a mainstream issue. The association's main aim is—

". . . To preserve intact in their natural condition the existing National Parks of Queensland, and tosecure 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 NationalParks. NPA will actively support and promote the declaration of the remaining unreserved suitableareas of Queensland as National Parks, and will act to protect the integrity and quality of NationalParks.

NPAQ will welcome involvement in the development and implementation of ManagementPlans for National Parks, of Aboriginal groups with significant traditional links to the land of the parkand will raise no objection to special provisions for presentation and preservation of, andappropriate 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 outincompatible activities in existing National Parks, including grazing, provision of road access, theextraction of minerals and the taking of flora and fauna, except in those special cases wherenoxious weeds or feral animals are to be eradicated and then only in accordance with theprovisions 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


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 theGlasshouse Mountains; Mount Pinbarrin; the Conondale Ranges; the Kondalilla Ranges; and MountBarney. The list is endless. Under this legislation all of these parks could be claimed. From my readingof the legislation, all that is needed is a claim that the area is of traditional or cultural significance. Anyof these parks could be claimed.

The Government is supposed to be the keeper of these parks, yet it has alienated the people ofQueensland from them. It has taken these national parks and given them away to a group with vestedinterests. What a disgrace! I invite honourable members to run through the list and see what theirelectorates are losing—thousands and thousands of hectares of national park. The list also includesMoreton Island, Blue Lake at Stradbroke and Lady Musgrave Island. Perhaps there is a claim in regardto that island; I do not know. It also includes St Helena Island—which may be in the electorate of themember 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 parkscould 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 theheadland at Burleigh Heads? Will special Aboriginal living areas be set aside, as is recommended in theFitzgerald report for the Great Sandy Region and Fraser Island? I know that most members of theGovernment 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 ofAwinya 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 ofpeople living in these areas be limited? If the Fitzgerald report on Fraser Island and the Great SandyRegion 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 ofAboriginal people in the management of these parks, but we cannot support the alienation of oursuperb 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 crasspomposity of the member for Yeronga. Twice in recent months he has betrayed not only his principlesbut 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 Housedebated the Electoral Districts Act. He compromised himself by accepting and supporting a continuationof the gerrymander, and he has again compromised himself in his normal ponderous, verbose andegotistical manner by


supporting this shadow of a Bill. It is nothing like the Bill that the Minister demanded. The member forYeronga and the Minister went before the Premier and melted like ice-cream in the heat. The memberfor Yeronga has the incredible audacity to criticise members of the Liberal Party and the National Partybecause they are prepared to honestly state their position—a position that he is either not allowed ornot 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 nothave a position. What looks like being the populist view within the party is good enough, and he willaccept it. For him, delivery: fair; presentation: poor—although, when compared to that of the memberfor Caboolture, it is presentation: outstanding; content: whatever people would like to hear. It is a greattragedy that this Bill has satisfied no-one. It is another case of the Labor Party and the Minister sellingtheir 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 LiberalParty 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 isindeed an historic occasion. With the introduction of the Aboriginal Land Bill, this Parliament, for the firsttime 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 theQueensland community and this Parliament has come of age in a process of maturation in itsconsideration of serious social issues in the community. For over a century, the question of AboriginalLand 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 inalienablerights to land for Aboriginals. That is now achieved in this Bill. On the basis that it has never beenachieved before, if on no other basis, today is an historic occasion for the Aboriginal people ofQueensland and the Queensland community. There will be a number of difficult issues which thisGovernment will address in the course of its life. There will be endless debate during this Government'sterm of office about whether it proceeded too quickly or too slowly with reform. That is always a featureof reform Governments in this country.

We all remember the suggestions that the Whitlam Government moved too quickly, and there aresome who suggest that this Government in some respects moves too slowly or, in this particularinstance, not far enough. That is a matter of public perception that each individual will assess. Thesimple fact is that an enduring feature of Labor Governments, of true Government's reform, is that theynot only respond to fair-minded public opinion but they lead public opinion with true social reform. Oneof the difficulties that has been faced in recent debate about this proposed new law for Queensland iswhether our Government lives up to expectations. All Governments of reform, particularly LaborGovernments in this country, have expectations out there in the community. We acknowledge that. Ithink it is important today that we not focus unduly on the distance that might exist between whatsomeone's expectations might have been in respect of this new law and what has actually beenachieved, when the distance is much greater between what has gone before and what will be after thisBill becomes law. What is being achieved by this Bill, I suggest, is a paradigm shift in the way that whitelaw addresses the issue of Aboriginal land rights. It is an monumental change in the way white law in awhite 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 pastwere Clayton's rights. What distinguishes this Bill most significantly from what has gone before—thedeeds of grants in trust and the other forms of reserves set aside by the previous Government—is thatthey never had the courage to provide Aboriginal people with true freehold title; they never had thecourage to take that final


step and provide true freehold title. This Bill provides inalienable freehold title to Aboriginal people, andit is the inalienable feature of that freehold title that draws the ownership of that land more closely in linewith Aboriginal ownership than any other form of title known to white law. It was suggested by theOpposition that this Government has no social policy agenda. Well, if ever there needed to be evidenceof a manifest social policy agenda of this Government, this Bill is a clear indication of it. What theGovernment 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 notrights 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 accessto 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 inour society are currently suffering a significant degree of disadvantage and that this Bill works toredress, to a large degree, that disadvantage. For many years, it has been recognised by Aboriginalpeople and by those who understand the rights sought by the Aboriginal to inalienable freehold landgoes to the very root of their right to access their original cultural identity. Therefore, this Bill is a formalacknowledgment of those prior rights, and works to restore the dignity and, ultimately, theindependence of Aboriginal people. But it does more than that. It not only confers on Aboriginal peoplesome opportunity to recover from the disadvantage that they have suffered in the past, but it gives ourcommunity—the white community—something as well. It gives to us a chance to appreciate more fullyand more sincerely the heritage that is the true history —not the history that was part of too manyAnglo-Saxon history books in primary schools in my day and in the days of those who went to schoolbefore me—of this country and this continent, namely, a history of the indigenous people of thiscountry—our Aboriginal heritage.

I turn now to what I understand to be the scheme of the legislation and in that way highlight why Isee it as a major advance on what has occurred in the past. Fundamentally, the legislation will createwhat is known as Aboriginal land. It does this by providing two generic categories of land which can beconverted into Aboriginal land. Firstly, there is transferable land, which relates specifically to thosereserve-type lands which were previously set aside for Aboriginal communities. The second category isclaimable land, referred to in clause 2.12 of the Bill, which refers to available Crown land that theGovernor in Council has declared, by Government Gazette notice, together with that Aboriginal landwhich is transferred land. In other words, transferable lands, after they are transferred, becomeAboriginal 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 Governorin Council. That intervening process is probably something that causes some people some trepidationin relation to this Bill. But it is there partly because at present the available stock of Crown land which willbe open to claim is not clearly identifiable. It would be my hope that, in due course, that process will notbe necessary. Once a full catalogue of available Crown land is achieved, it will not be necessary for theintervening process of gazettal to occur before that land can be claimed. However, until one can identifyprecisely what all the available Crown land in this State is, it seems to me to be a satisfactory temporarymechanism for identifying land which is available to be claimed.

Clause 2.13 places a number of limitations on what constitutes available Crown land, and somereservations have been expressed about that. I think those reservations are genuine andunderstandable. Again, as I will point out in a moment, the basis of claim is extensive and I would liketo think that, in due course, once the general community accepts that the claims that will be made andthe lands that will be transferred to Aboriginal people are claims and transfers which will receive broadcommunity acceptance, we will be able to extend the range of accessible claimable land so thatAboriginal people will have access to land beyond that for which the Bill currently


provides. I should note that, even under current terms, transferable lands constitute about 3.4 millionhectares. Of course, on current estimates, that is about 1.8 per cent of the State. However, theavailable 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 Ithink it is a reasonable start.

When one looks at the grounds for claim, to which I turn now, it will be seen that once thecategories of land that can be claimed are extended, those grounds of claim will indeed accord toAboriginal people a reasonable and, indeed, much more extensive access to Aboriginal land in thefuture than currently occurs under the laws of any other State. Let me refer now to the way in which it isobtained. Claimable lands are available to be claimed under three grounds. The first is traditionalaffiliation, the second is historical association and the third is economic or cultural viability—otherwiseknown as a needs basis. Those three grounds of claim are more extensive than the grounds availableto 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 includeslands which belong to the Crown and which are able to be lawfully sold or leased or are not lawfullyused or occupied and are not needed or likely to be needed for an essential public purpose. I note thatin that legislation there is no provision for gazettal and that it extends to all Crown lands. Even with thatbroad definition of what constitutes claimable Crown lands in New South Wales, one should note thatthe actual area of land that has successfully been availed of by Aboriginal people in New South Walesis significantly less than what will be available to Aboriginal people under the modest proposals that areprovided 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 SouthWales, 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 beinalienable. 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 mininginterest. The issue of a mining veto has also raised some concerns. The effect of the consent in thisprovision, together with subclause (5) of clause 3.11, clearly indicates that the consent can be grantedor withheld, and granted on terms or conditions that Aboriginal people might negotiate and come toagreement 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 MineralResources 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 beincorporated ultimately in amendments to this Bill, provides that the owner of a reserve, the claimants ofland or the trustees of Aboriginal land can request a conference with the party seeking to make amining 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 tothe Minister that any mining can occur. I understand that the experience in the Northern Territory hasbeen that Aboriginals are not petty about mining claims. However, they insist that they have real andgenuine negotiations with any party seeking a mining claim and that certain fair terms and conditionsfor that claim be provided. Those terms and conditions may provide for some form of fee or royalty. Ibelieve that that is contemplated within the joint terms of this Bill and the Mineral Resources Act. Itmight have been desirable that this Bill refer specifically to some formal procedure for facilitating theprovision of royalties to Aboriginal people as part of those negotiations, and for a fund into which thoseroyalties 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 miningclaimants—obtaining further fees or royalties, would come to fruition without any specific mention in theBill. At some stage in the future, it may be


that we can specifically provide formal recognition of the right of Aboriginal people to negotiate for thosesorts of fees.

Several factors have raised some concerns. One issue of concern is the ministerial fiat, whichoccurs initially with the gazettal of claimable lands, and at the end of the process in the Land ClaimsTribunal. After the tribunal has considered the claim of the claimants and makes a recommendation tothe Minister about whether the grant of Aboriginal land should be made, the Minister still has adiscretion not to make the grant. It is understandable that people would regard that as an unduelimitation on the access of Aboriginal people to lands that they are claiming. I believe that, in time, theMinister will respond and generally accept the recommendation of the tribunal. When the processesand the fruits of those claims are seen to be effective, it may be that the question of ministerial fiat atthat late stage can be done away with. Another factor that will facilitate claims by Aboriginal people inthe future will be some recognition for land councils that can represent individual groups of Aboriginalpeople or trustees of particular areas in their claims for further land. Ultimately, I believe that we couldprovide 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 thiscountry. They have worked on cattle and sheep properties in the western areas of the State, and havefought beside other Australians in the field of battle and have worn the Australian uniform. A very fineAboriginal, Eric Deeral, was elected to this House. I remember Eric quite well. He made an excellentcontribution 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 theOpposition spokesman. The Leader of Opposition Business is the member for Fassifern. I will notaccept any more interjections from the member for Nicklin.

Mr GUNN: From listening to this debate, it is pretty evident that many members do not knowmuch about Aboriginal and Islander people. During my childhood, and as I was growing up, I had theopportunity to work alongside those people. They are a peace-loving people. I cannot understand whythe Premier of this State did not go out to the gates of Parliament House and meet those people. I canassure him that he was in no danger. Those people are not like that. Because of my association withthem, I personally know more about the Islanders than I do about the Aboriginals. My daughter alsohas an association with them, which I will mention later.

Aboriginals and Islanders have been put on trial. They now have good education facilities. When Ibecame a member of Parliament in 1972, I visited Aboriginal settlements and the Torres Strait islands. Iwas 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 saythat, in most areas, they have wonderful facilities not only in primary education but also in secondaryeducation. Many of them go on to tertiary education and are quite capable of taking their place in thearts and sciences.

Mr Bredhauer: Most of the funds for the Islander schools were provided by the FederalGovernment.


Mr GUNN: There is no such thing. The taxpayers of Australia provide the funds. It is not theFederal Government. That is a misnomer and has been for a long time. The Federal Governmentsupplies nothing, but it wastes a hell of a lot. I want to see the culture of the Aborigines and Islandersmaintained. On the many, many trips that I have made to settlements in Cape York and in the NorthernTerritory, I was interested to see the young children still being taught the various Aboriginal and Islanderdances. Anyone who has had the opportunity of seeing them must applaud them. On one occasion, Ihad the pleasure of opening the Hope Vale Festival. A lot of effort goes into that dance festival and it iswell worth seeing. On one occasion, I accompanied the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to Townsville to seethe Pacific Festival, which was also well worth seeing.

Protests have never worried me, provided that they do not inconvenience people who are goingabout their daily business. Recent land rights protests that have been attended by no-hoper whitestirrers have harmed the Aboriginal cause. One might ask: is it intentional or not? Destruction ofproperty cannot be tolerated. Aborigines and Islanders must realise that those white stirrers get theirkicks out of confrontation and take part in every protest march that I have seen around here. We callthem 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, Isupported it. I still consider that it is the best form of ownership. Promises made by the ALP could notbe 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 leavethe legislation and finetune the deed of grant in trust. That was the intention of the Government at thetime the legislation was introduced. I can well remember that.

Aborigines and Islanders living in remote areas are disadvantaged in many, many ways. The costof fuel is astronomical. In most areas, it costs about $1 a litre. Those people pay Federal Governmentsales tax on the landed article, which means that they pay sales tax on the freight that they havealready paid. Food prices are double what one would expect to pay in Brisbane. Air services are erraticand extremely expensive. Considering the remoteness of some areas, education services are nowreasonable. I take my hat off to the teachers, etc., who go to those areas. There is no doubt that theydo an excellent job. Facilities have improved out of sight. I was Minister for Education from 1980 to1982, and I fought very hard for the Education Department to take over that function, which it shouldhave taken over years ago. Mistakes have been made. Since the Education Department has beenresponsible for teaching in those places, it has been my pleasure to accompany Federal Ministers andmembers of Parliament to various places to open some of the new schools, which are of a very, veryhigh standard. Health services, particularly at Thursday Island Hospital, are excellent. That hospital iswell 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 AccountsCommittee and the CJC. Some are under investigation. However, in most cases they need qualifiedstaff. 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 manyAboriginal and Islander regions and have been extended the utmost courtesy. In 1981, as Minister forEducation, I made a trip to settlements in Cape York and the Northern Territory. It was interesting thatapproximately 200 Queensland teachers had been seconded to the Northern Territory. About sevendifferent dialects were spoken, and our teachers were handling all of them. I was very, very proud ofthem. I travelled throughout the area for a long time. I found that the children were well cared for andvery intelligent. I am certain that, if given the opportunity, they can achieve any station in life. Ipersonally have listened to their problems and, in all cases, have tried to do my utmost to improve theirpositions.

I certainly have first-hand knowledge of Torres Strait. My second daughter, Helen, who is a skillednurse, accepted the Torres Strait region as a challenge to her professionalism. She married an Islanderand with her four children lives on Badu Island. I


am very proud of Helen, William and my grandchildren, who ring me every couple of days and spendtwo holidays a year with my wife and me at the farm. I visit them once a year and have made manyfriends on Badu. My daughter and William now have a large general store on the island, but Helen stillassists with her nursing skills when that is necessary. The Government has done a good job there insome 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 giveabsolute land rights, but it found that the vast majority of its own supporters—and probably some incaucus—were dead against giving any more than the Government now intends to give them. I can fullyappreciate the anger that is being demonstrated by the Aboriginal and Islander people. They had anexpectation 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 peoplewould 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, andeven in the City of Brisbane. Alcohol is a social problem all over the world. The Government is usingthat problem as an excuse, and that must be extremely hurtful to those fine people. The additional costto this Government as a result of the alcohol problem would be minimal. My two other children visit theisland regularly. They are both doctors and give their services free of charge to the people living on theisland. 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 thisdebate will talk about islanders. Those islanders who have received secondary education on the TorresStrait islands can take their place in any society. The point I make is that the treatment handed out toAboriginal and Islander people by this Government through this Bill, which is a fraud, is the greatestinsult ever handed out to any Queenslander, black or white. It would have been better if theGovernment left the deed of grant trust legislation in place. When the original legislation was put inplace, I wanted to include forestry and gravel rights. It should have been done at that time because theprovision of those rights is only fair and reasonable. The response that I have received from my manyAboriginal and Islander friends is that at least they knew where they stood with the National Party. Manyof them have supported the ALP for many years but they claim that the members of the ALP haveturned 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 inany of the settlements or on any of the islands, a white person is behind it. They are not there to helpblack people; they are there to help themselves. They claim that they have the support of Federalmembers. I have heard that said many times, but I do not believe them. A member of Parliamentwould not be stupid enough to compromise himself or herself with some of these people whosereputations 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 aredissatisfied 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 theMinister who is leading tonight's debate. It never should have been taken out of her hands, becauseshe knows more about it than the Premier will ever know. I am absolutely convinced that Aboriginal andIslander 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 disturbedby the lack of Government speakers in this debate. It is indicative of the difference of opinion that existsamong members of the Government. There will be no shortage of speakers at the ALP conference. Ihope the conference deals with this matter


in depth, because I consider it to be a grave mistake. Finally, after this Bill is passed, Aboriginal andIslander 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 someconsiderable time, but I have had some difficulty with it. Whilst listening to this debate, I have come tothe view that there are a number of people on both sides of the House who do not understand thislegislation and that there are certainly a number of people in this House who do not understandAboriginal 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 Aboriginalpeople. That is patently untrue. If members had been kind enough to listen and cut through therhetoric, they would realise that there is a deep and abiding concern and understanding for Aboriginaland 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 doesnot do the things that it purports to do. It is no wonder that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeople of this State are unhappy people today. I suggest that we have managed to achieve a doublewhammy, which is the sort of thing that one has come to expect from the Premier of this State. He hasset these people up. That becomes clear if one reads the policy documents on Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander affairs and the prospects for those people under a Labor Government which werepublished prior to the last election. There was considerable expectation raised amongst these peopleabout the Government's performance and what it would do for them. The Government has now failedto achieve that. That makes me unhappy, and it will continue to make the Aborigines and Torres StraitIslander of this State unhappy for many years to come. When I say that the Premier finally achieved adouble whammy, I believe that he cheated on these people. He raised their expectations and in sodoing it is no secret to say in this place that the greater community of the State was somewhatdisturbed at the prospect raised by those expectations. To a very great degree, the Premier has nowpulled the mat out from underneath the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this State. Thathas been evidenced by the fact that they have marched on this Parliament and taken the front gatesoff the parliamentary precinct area, which is a most unhealthy thing to do, in my opinion. Those peopleare frustrated because of the things that have happened to them. Now that the Premier has managedto get the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this State to march in the streets anddesecrate the precinct of this Parliament, he is now taking the high moral ground. He is taking a toughstand and is saying, "I will not deal with this rabble. I won't give them any more." I believe that theAborigines 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 andTorres Strait Islander people. Earlier, the member for Cook said that those people are probably themost disadvantaged racial group in this nation, and I concur with that view. However, I will not acceptthat the deeds of grant in trust that were established in pioneering legislation by the National PartyGovernment have been anything less than they were supposed to be. They gave to Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander people not something less than has been provided by this legislation; the DOGITlegislation did not provide something less than freehold land. If an honourable member cared to readthe legislation and study it, he would discover that the effect of that legislation was to vest inalienablefreehold title in Aboriginal and Islander people. I do not mind if different words are used to achieve thesame end, but I do not believe that it does members of this Parliament any good to misrepresent thesituation or misrepresent the intentions of the previous National Party Government. The DOGITlegislation was


good legislation. Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, your Government may have been better advisedto finetune that legislation to give to Aboriginal people what is rightly and properly theirs, rather thanpretend to give them something that is not rightly and properly theirs any more than it is mine oranybody else's. They are the concerns that I wished to raise. However, those matters have been widelycanvassed 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 havenot been discussed today. Some of the problems that have arisen in relation to that type of land shouldbe 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 throughoutQueensland. Some of those small parcels of land—particularly one at Cooktown—have been claimedby Aboriginal groups and have been treated as theirs for a number of years. Because of my very briefencounter with the Community Services portfolio, it came to my notice that that land should rightly andproperly 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 Aboriginalpeople and of making small reserve parcels of land become Aboriginal land. Under the existinglegislation, it was a very difficult task because the legislation prescribed that local governmentresponsibilities 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, 24hectares should have local government control attached to it could have properly been handed over. Itshould have resided quite properly within the local government area in which it was placed. I thenexamined the deeds of grant that were available under the Land Act. It was my view that they were notsecure enough in terms of tenure and that the land could be taken away by the Governor in Council atthe stroke of a pen.

It is for those reasons that I suggest that the legislation is not without some benefits. At least thosepieces of land can now be provided under inalienable freehold title without the requirement of localgovernment control attaching to it, which is probably an important advance. This legislation provides forthe 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 theappointment of trustees, which I regard as a patronising act on the part of the Government that shouldnot 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 governmentareas. For example, on the outskirts of Mareeba, there is a block of land with which I am very familiar. Itis a reserve of land set aside for Aboriginal purposes and it contains between 16 and 20 acres. It isexcellent land, which could well be turned into a dormitory suburb for Aboriginal housing. Let me raisethe prospect of the further development of that land. Let us assume that ATSIC decides that it hassufficient funds for the construction of 50 to 80 houses. The first question to be asked is: will that landbe subject to the ordinary town-planning requirements of a local authority area within which theseparcels of land are located? The second question is: if that is the case, will the town council by-lawsimpose 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 withthe collection of fees and charges on inalienable land in Queensland. In her reply, I ask the Minister tooutline how she intends to handle that so that there is some guarantee of future support for Aborigineson inalienable freehold land which is situated on reserves for Aboriginal purposes on the outskirts ofrural towns?

Mr Hayward: Are you talking about local government charges or something?


Mr GILMORE: Yes, I am. It is a matter of serious concern to me and will be a matter of concernnot only to local government throughout Queensland but also to Aboriginal people who could possiblyfind themselves in the position of having their inalienable freehold title threatened by local governmentcharges, that is, provided that this Government and the Commonwealth Government are not preparedto put in place adequate support mechanisms to ensure that that inalienable freehold land mustsurvive.

In the few minutes I have available, I will speak about a piece of land which is near and dear to myheart, one which I have spoken to the Minister about on a number of occasions and one which Iworked very hard to have transferred to the Aboriginal people of this State. It is known as Mona Monaand I have spoken about it previously in this Parliament. It consists of approximately 1 200 hectares ofland north of the Barron River and north west of Kuranda. It is the site of an old Seventh Day AdventistAboriginal mission from which the Aboriginal people were taken in the fifties so that the land could beset 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 noother person had a rightful or proper claim on that land. It is my view that that land rightly and properlybelongs to the Mona Mona people. Over a period, from both within and without the Ministry, I hadmuch 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 thesurrounding 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 trusteesfor that land. At that time, simply because of the problems that I have already outlined in terms of thedeeds 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 theAboriginal people of that community were prepared, to accept a 75-year priority special lease. I wagerthat in 75 years there will not be a Government on the face of this earth that would be prepared todispossess those people of that land. That was the view that I took then, and it is the view that I takenow. However, this Minister, after 18 months in this place, still has not managed to achieve that speciallease for those people. She accused me of disturbing the peace at Kuranda, of dividing thatcommunity improperly and of making it almost impossible for them to come to an accord so that theycould take over the trusteeship of that land. I make this point simple because, as the Minister is goingto appoint trustees to all Aboriginal deeds of grant in this State, this legislation takes away the localgovernment 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 besigned. How will she proceed to provide appointed trustees? What a patronising move this is! Thesepeople are competent Queenslanders. They are entitled to and able to elect their own leaders, theirown councils and, therefore, their own trustees. I wonder what it is that makes this Minister and thisPremier believe that they are wiser than the councils of Aborigines in this State. I wonder what makesthem so patronising that they believe that those people should be dispossessed of that single powerthat was given to them under the deeds of grant in trust in this State and has now been taken awaybecause 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 ofland. How is she going to achieve it without a serious disruption of the social fabric of the Aboriginalpeople 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 addinga few more words about Mona Mona. I am seriously disturbed that, as it is a reserve, it is excludedexpressly from Aboriginal control under this legislation. I want this land to be gazetted. I plead with theMinister to make that land her first gazettal.


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 Aboriginalpeople but also to the people of Queensland that she will reserve and very carefully plan the area inwhich that dam ought to go. I will tell the Minister why. The Quaid road, which has been denigratedsomewhat in this Parliament both recently and in the past, diagonally dissects that property above thehigh-water line of the dam. It goes in a straight line from Mona Mona to Kewarra beach. That waterwould 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 reservesupply of water for the hydroelectric scheme. However, most importantly, that water would be the mostmagnificent asset that this Government or any other Government could hand to the Aboriginal peopleof that area. It is about 12 kilometres in a straight line from the beaches north of Cairns and it would bewater free of marine stingers and free of crocodiles, and a freshwater playground available to thetourism industry in northern Australia, which we are all applauding as possibly being the great whitehope for this area. It would provide, and must provide, a secure future for those Aboriginal people. Itmust, and will, provide work for their children and for their children's children. It is important that whenthat land is gazetted, the Government takes cognisance of the need for that dam. I urge theGovernment not to rush in and simply hand that land to the Aboriginal people of the area and leave noprovision for this Government or a future administration to construct that dam. It is important for theAboriginal 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 fromthe Government side. I am prepared to accept that the member for Cook endeavoured to make acontribution. He appealed for fairness and fair play. I appreciate that and respect him for it. However, Ibelieve that all this Bill does is play to the emotions of the Aboriginal people. It does not get themanywhere. I will be very interested to hear the Minister tell the House in her reply whether the land canbe mortgaged and, if so, under what conditions, because nothing can be done with this land unlesssome equipment can be put on it. It is my opinion that one of the most important things that theGovernment should be doing for Aboriginal people is trying to teach them skills to enable them to workthe land—if land is going to be given to them—so that it can become viable and they will not have torely 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 putthese people. I do not think that anybody wants a dole queue. I have worked since the age of 14, and Iam nearly 70. I never enjoyed it whenever I was out of work. I did plenty of work, and I did not enjoybeing out of work or having a bit of a low bank balance. I do not think any of us likes to find ourselves inthat position.

Ms Warner: Aboriginal people work for the dole. It is called CDEP. They go one better than you.


Mr BOOTH: I could not hear what the Minister said, but I do not think it would have been veryintelligent. I do not think I will worry about it. I do not want to blow it out of all proportion, but thedamage that was done to the front of Parliament House was done because the man who is now thePremier of this State raised the expectations of these people. He conned them on election day and gottheir votes, and he has been conning them ever since. The other night, when he thought he would clawback a bit of public support, in the full blaze of the television cameras the Premier insulted these peoplein a way that I have never heard before, and I have been interested in politics for more than 50 years. Ihave never before heard a Premier of this State pick out a section of the people and say that they aredrunken 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 thePremier said about these people whom he has conned is just about the worst thing that has ever beensaid to anyone in my long time as a member of this Parliament. The Premier should be ashamed ofhimself. Any man who would say a thing like that is not fit to be Premier of this State. Let thesemembers of the Government who have been backing up the Premier stand up and tell the House whatthey think of what he said to those people.

I have said that this debate has been full of emotionalism. The Minister circulated a 14-pagespeech about how the Aboriginal people were knocked about years ago and what was done to them. Iwill 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 notappreciated by these people who sneer at the pioneers and the people who got out and didsomething. I want to comment on some remarks that were made by members on the Government sideabout some of these people dying for Australia. They did, and some of them were in the unit that I wasin. However, I did not see any of them pull down the Australian flag and jump on it. I never saw any ofthat, and I do not think that the sincere and genuine Aborigines would do it. I think it is the rent-a-crowdpeople 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 ourhistory. However, the Government cannot tell people that they will never be put in prison no matter whatthey do. If the Government does that, there will be a lot of murders and all sorts of other crimes. In caseI run out of time, I want to say something about inalienable freehold title, because I think it is a lot ofrubbish. There is only one title, and that is freehold. If people such as the member for Brisbane Centralwant 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 withhim 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 betterleader than the present Premier. A lady on the Government side said that that is the Irish in me. If oneexamines the history of Ireland——

Mrs Bird: I didn't say that at all.


Mr BOOTH: I did not intend to attack the honourable member. She did mention the Irish, and Ithanked 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, onland that was handed to English officers who fought with Cromwell's army. This legislation deals withexactly the same thing. They fought in Cromwell's army and they were given some land. Many of themhave been good landlords. One of them had offered the land of about 50 farms for sale back to theIrish Government, and it was said then in the Irish House that he wanted an enormous amount ofmoney for it. He offered it back at about a third of what it was worth. The Irish Government bought theland back. I am not opposed to the Aboriginal people buying land if that is what they want to do, but Iam opposed to taking land off someone. I listened to the member for Yeronga and the member forBrisbane 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 fromhim 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 toput the boot into the grazier when his pastoral lease expires by taking the land off him and giving itaway. The Government knows what it is trying to do. However, I do not have time to continue with thatmatter. I want to move on to the matter of national parks. Many people in my area and I am sure in thearea of the member for Salisbury enjoy going to a national park with their children. People like me whoare 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 thenational park, they will go there only once. No city people will ever use a national park if they are goingto be hassled. The Government must make sure that does not happen. Why would any Governmentwant to give away national parks? Government members sneer at what we have, but the previousGovernment was responsible for the declaration of many national parks and, in recent times, a lot ofother land has been purchased for national parks. Why would anyone want to give away those nationalparks 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 andUluru.

Mr BOOTH: Okay. They cannot be mined. I want to get on to mining rights now. If a white manowns a piece of land under which oil is found, he does not get the royalties, yet we have people heretonight 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 wouldfrighten people. I do not believe that the mining rights should be any different for Aborigines than foranyone else. I believe we are all the same and that we should all be treated the same. I do not see anyreason why it


should be different. If the Government starts to give away someone else's land, it will soon find itself introuble. If Government members want to give away land, they should give away their own land. That iswhere it starts. The member for Brisbane Central was an absolute disgrace. He got up and said, "Givethis away; give that away." There was not one word about anything coming out of his electorate oranything 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 aspossible 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 orsomething on the land, they will need water. I am not suggesting that they cannot be taught. The lastspeaker 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 opportunityshould be given to them to enable them to work. That applies to white as well as black people in thiscountry. About 18 months ago, I had the opportunity to visit Zambia, a country that is very proud of itsblack ancestry and in which very great efforts are being made to try and get the people working. Manypeople in that country are unemployed, and one of the reasons is that they are not educated enoughto be able to fence the land, grow the crops and attend to them. I think that in Queensland we havepeople with the knowledge, who would be able to educate the Aborigines and show them how tomanage the land. Perhaps not all of them will make a living, but many of them will. I turn now toreserves. I know that only a genius could do away with reserves immediately but, if anything is to bedone 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 thenumber of Aborigines living in Warwick is larger than it was some years ago. I think the reason for that isthat some of them absconded from the Toomelah reserve and other reserves further away. I perhapsdo not even blame them for that. At times, we like to big-note ourselves and say how good Aboriginalsare. We love them on the football field and we love them in the boxing ring, where their skills and fastreflexes give them some advantage or some greater ability to perform. We like to cheer them in thosepursuits. However, we do not like to do very much for them otherwise. I have not seen even themember for Brisbane Central coming into this place with big groups of them with him as minders. Mybelief is that, if it is persevered with, this Bill can do some good for the Aborigines, but not if it is usedmerely as an emotional issue with the Premier dumping a bucket on them as soon as it suits him. Rightfrom the start, he should have realised that, if the Bill was not persevered with, it would not be muchgood to the Aboriginal people.

Every time a member discusses a Bill in this place, members opposite shout, "You haven't readthe 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 toclause 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 under2.12)."


A lot of national park area will be handed over to the Aboriginals. In that regard, some care will have tobe taken, because national parks have been great places for entertainment. Many people like to go tothem. 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 frightenedaway. 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 madewhen he said that Aborigines were drunken and diseased. Nevertheless, the honourable member forArcherfield made a really bad mistake today. The Speaker then gave him a thumping over it and madehim apologise. I think the honourable member for Archerfield had better keep out of the debate for therest of the day. I predict that there will be difficulties with this legislation. I think I am right, but I hope Iam wrong.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (8.40 p.m.): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise toparticipate in this debate tonight. At the outset, I make it clear that I do not condone our forebears' pastactions and I do not attempt to excuse them. However, I refuse to be a part of a national guiltsyndrome that will leave me or anybody else feeling sorry forever for what happened to the Aboriginalpeople in this country. I do not like it. I sympathise with them. However, if we all look back through ourhistory, whether it be here in Australia or elsewhere in the world, we will see that our forebears havebeen dispossessed and we have not had a very good run. It depends on how far one wants to takethat. I am not a racist. As a young person at school, I was often picked on and antagonised by theother white people because I in fact stood up for the Aboriginal students. I stood up for them because Ibelieved 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 meaningof 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 graveif he saw this pathetically racist legislation? There is no other way of describing it. Would he not alsohave turned in his grave if he had seen the absolute rabble which swarmed the gates of Parliamentonly last Thursday and again yesterday? The desecration of Parliament, the anarchy, the thuggery andthe vandalism were brought about by the Government sending misleading signals to the Aboriginalpeople. I do not condone what happened in front of Parliament House yesterday, nor do the majority ofQueenslanders—and nor should they. We should be sending a signal to those people that that actionshould 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 whitesand blacks. It should not introduce legislation that treats Aborigines as something different from humanbeings, or legislation that treats Aborigines as being over and above the average white citizens, and itcertainly should not introduce legislation that only widens the rift in white/black relations. That is exactlywhat this legislation is on about. It appears to me that this Government has taken the writings ofGeorge Orwell too seriously. That is concerning many people. When, in his book Animal Farm, GeorgeOrwell said that some are more equal than others, he was only joking. I am speaking for hundreds ofthousands 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. Thetime 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


now be a priority of this Government and of future Governments. Clearly, this can be achieved by onlyone means. That means is to ultimately—and this will cause consternation to many members in thisHouse—abolish the entire Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs and to totally reject anyconcept, including the one that lies before the House, calling for special attention to be given to acertain group based on the colour of their skin or on their race. Everyone knows what it means if peopleare judged by the colour of their skin or their race. It means racism. As far as I am concerned, racismhas no place in Queensland. Aborigines should be treated on an equal basis to all otherQueenslanders. Ultimately, there should not be any Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, justas there is no department for European descendants' affairs and no department for the affairs ofChinese-born Australians. I suggest to this House that there is no way that we should be passinglegislation that provides land rights for Aborigines, and Aborigines alone, because that heightens racialtension 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 claimland—land that no other citizens of Queensland are entitled to claim. That entitlement is given onprovisions that are available only to Aboriginals and to no-one else, and on criteria that apply exclusivelyto 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. Iput 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 theproblems of Aboriginals. It is not even a start. I challenge the Minister to tell me what this legislationachieves for Aboriginal people. What about the crime rate, alcoholism rate and unemployment rateamong Aborigines, about which we are all concerned? How does land rights legislation fix thoseproblems? I suggest to the Minister that it does absolutely nothing. It fails totally. Might the Minister tellthis House exactly how this legislation fixes the most major, fundamental and worrying problem thatfaces whites and blacks in Queensland? I refer to the problem of integration—the process of bringingwhites and Aboriginal people together in harmony. This Government has already significantly damagedthat harmony.

What do honourable members think about this Government's decision to drop proceedings againstAborigines involved in the 1987 race riots in my electorate? That was very upsetting. The Government'sdecision is causing a great deal of consternation. Can members blame people for thinking thatAboriginals are more equal before the law? That is what people are thinking. By bringing this legislationbefore the House, the Government will heighten those tensions. This Government is continuing thispolicy of racial separation. This Bill, which allows for recognition of separate races and separatedevelopment, widens the rift between white and black Australians. That is unfortunate. Another word forseparate development—and the Government does not like this word—is "apartheid". That is mostcertainly not something that Queenslanders want. If the majority of Aboriginal people wish to be truthfulwith themselves, they must admit that they have no desire to go back and live the way that their culturelived more than 200 or 300 years ago. They want to enjoy the white way of life. I believe that thepowers that organise and run the Aboriginal movement—whether they be white advisers or Aboriginalmanipulators at the top—are using land rights to incite Aboriginal people to head in a direction in whichthey 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 nothingfrom 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 hisadvisers, who have once again


earned their trip from Canberra to Queensland. The Premier's Canberra advisers have played a verydangerous game of deceit. This Bill opens up a Pandora's box. This Government and the people ofQueensland 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 ofAboriginal bashing. Unfortunately, that is the way that it was received. The Premier and the Ministerknow 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 wassent out to Aboriginal communities actually explained what was in this legislation for Aborigines. It reallyis nothing short of extensive. Why does this Government not come clean with the people ofQueensland 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. TheGovernment is not telling the community about that. The Government will regret this, and will totallydetest anybody reminding it about this issue, which is doomed to haunt it. This Government has beentoo blatant in its neglect for the security, protection and better development of all Queenslanders—bothblack 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 relationsin other countries? It is too obvious that she has not. From my research, it is also obvious that she hasneglected her responsibilities. Of prime concern to me is the intention of this Bill to introduce a LandClaims 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, heightensracial tension and is allowed to make recommendations that will pressure the Government into makingamendments to legislation—not only the Aboriginal Land Act but also water resources legislation andforestry legislation. That will lead to future and unplanned substantial gains for Aboriginal people in thisState. That is the experience of land tribunals in the past. It surprises me that the Minister clearly hasno 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 middleground, is designed to lull people into a false sense of security. The Government is aware of this. Bysimple amendment in the future, the scope of the Aboriginal Land Act will mean the alienation ofwhites. How can the Minister be so blind as to ignore what is going on right next door to Australia? Irefer to New Zealand. In recent years, New Zealand has witnessed an upsurge in Maori violence. Wehave all seen the upsurge in resentment of white people towards Maoris. That is very unfortunate. If theMinister had bothered to find out why that is occurring, she would have found that it is a direct result oflegislation that is similar to this legislation which the Government is pushing through the House at asuspiciously fast pace. More particularly, it is the result of the establishment in 1985 of a Land ClaimsTribunal by this Government's Labor colleagues in New Zealand. Look at the mess that race relations inNew Zealand are in at the moment. They are not very good in Australia, either, and I do not believethat they will improve while we pursue legislation such as this. The demonstrations that occurredrecently outside this Parliament House are evidence of that. This Government's Labor colleagues inNew Zealand started to raise expectations, to insinuate things and to lay the very groundwork on whichfurther land claims—more substantial land claims and future land claims—could be made. The verysame system that this Government is proposing has been tried and failed in New Zealand, which is apredominantly European country on our doorstep—not some tin-pot, far-flung Third World nation, butNew Zealand. That is very, very significant. If the Government cannot learn from the examples of otherplaces—whether it be in Australia, across the Tasman or anywhere else in the world—when they havepursued a way of fixing up their race relations with indigenous people, it will never learn and history willjudge it on its failure.


The Aboriginal Land Bill is a tool that will allow substantial gains for Aboriginal people--there is nodoubt about that—through amendments to other legislation such as the Water Resources Act, theMining Act, the Fisheries Act—and what else? I am complaining because I do not believe that landrights is the way to fix Aboriginal problems. It is obvious that that only heightens racial tension in thecommunity. This is step one, and the Government knows it. Aboriginal land claims will not endhere—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 beenquoted. 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 ALPpolicy on Aboriginal affairs? Will it dissolve and vanish into thin air? Or will the ALP hold on to itspathetically warped policy? Honourable members know the one—the one that recognises the invasionof Europeans and that Aboriginal land was stolen; the one about giving away our national parks; theone that allocates money from land tax into a special fund for land acquisition for Aboriginal people; theone 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 thatthose policies will be forever forgotten. The guarantee will not come, and she knows it. She is too afraidof losing her ministerial lurks and perks to back her party's policy, even though she would love to do soon a matter of principle. The Government knows, Opposition members know, and I hope that thepeople know, that this is the very first step. The Government is preparing the groundwork for claim afterclaim.

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 andbeing disgusting, as he sometimes is. The reason why I put this speech on paper is that I wanted to getin context the thoughts that came to me the other day. The Government is preparing the loopholes forthe sole purpose of political gain. However, the most disgusting thing that it is doing is giving ordinaryQueenslanders 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 itis—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 overallcontext. How does land rights solve the social problems? It does not. How does land rights alleviate thetensions 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. Onnumerous 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 goon claiming land because they think that it is the only way to get themselves out of their situation—theirunderlying problems of social destitution. They think that land rights is the only way out. Unfortunately, itis not. But, to no avail—the drunkenness continues, the violence continues, the low self-esteemcontinues and the unemployment continues. Tell me, how does land rights create new jobs forAborigines? How does land rights help those Aboriginal children


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 isall that it achieves. Who wants land rights, other than a few people—a handful of Aboriginal extremistsand the people that they incite. They do not, by any means, represent the majority of Queenslandersor, for that matter, Australians. The protesters who were outside this House last Thursday and yesterdaywere not protesting against the principle of the legislation, nor were they representative of decentAboriginal people. I am sure that decent Aboriginal people in the community would have been veryupset at the way in which some of those people—not all of them black—tore down the front gate andvandalised the property of the Parliament. The Government members and the other individuals whowere 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. TheAboriginal 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 hasadmitted it. There is no need whatsoever for this Bill, so why put it in place if it is not to serve as thelaunching pad for the further implementation of ALP policy? There is absolutely no reason at all otherthan to fulfil ALP policy in the long term. Let us have a look at ALP policy on land rights. Let us have alook at how successful land rights have been in other parts of Australia. Let us all have a very close lookat the Northern Territory example, where land rights have run rife. I suggest to the House that theMinister 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 NorthernTerritory because, with 48 per cent of the Northern Territory under Aboriginal control, he knows exactlywhat land rights means. Marshall Perron will tell them exactly what the impact is on both whites andblacks. The Northern Territory, which has put up with 12 years of continuous litigation, has seen itscommunity become divided. Marshall Perron will tell Government members that. Maybe theGovernment should put its puerile political grievances to one side and seriously take note of thedevastating result in the Northern Territory. Marshall Perron will say that it has created jobs for judgesand 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 athing of the past. I suppose that the crippling Aboriginal unemployment is also a thing of the past. Isuppose that Aborigines are better educated and have taken on better and more secure jobs. Isuppose that all of those things have happened—have they all happened since land rights wereintroduced in the Northern Territory?Absolutely not. I do not want members to interpret my commentsincorrectly. 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 rightsafforded 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 startedfrom the point of view that Australia is in a very unique position. It is the only continent on earth that isone nation. Australia is made up of many ethnic groups and we have built on them extremely well. Allsorts of people have come to Australia from all parts of the world. To a certain extent they all keep theirown customs,


and yet somehow we have forged ourselves as a nation. As people we have our own Australiancharacteristics. We assimilate extremely well. There are always some tensions present, but we blendtogether to make one nation. Anything that is detrimental to the assimilation of the people of this nationshould be avoided. I was happy with the DOGIT legislation because it furthered this assimilation. Underthat legislation we allowed Aborigines to take over the land and to determine for themselves how theyshould develop and control it. I am disappointed that this legislation takes a step backwards from thatpoint and in fact becomes an act of paternalism, because the Government will once again take controland direct the people in the DOGIT communities. The DOGIT legislation was appropriate for thoseAboriginal 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 peoplewho live in urban communities. We must keep the idea of assimilation in the background and worktowards that aim. Everyone who chooses to live in an urban area gives up some association with theland. For generations, young people have been growing up in my electorate and, because there are nojobs there, they have to leave and adapt to life in the city. We have adopted certain lifestyles, rules andregulations in order to live in modern urban society. Public parklands and national parks have been setaside so that everyone can go back and get a feeling for the land. People who live in a town appreciatethat they have to live close together, and those parks are made available so that they can go back tothe land.

The assimilation of this nation will be done a great disservice if some exclusive use of these landsin urban areas is set aside for one race alone. I appreciate that these people feel frustrated becausethey want to get ahead. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Carnarvon said, landrights does not equal self-esteem. If the Aboriginal people think it through and consider all the thingsthat are unique about Australia, they would realise that an urban lifestyle demands that we share thesesorts of facilities. If we want to have an association with land—and people in all ethnic groups do—wehave to do it on a shared basis without any exclusivity. In addition, other aspects of urban life should beshared by all. I am referring to Government services such as housing, education, health-care, specialaccess to the law and all those sorts of things. I am sure that the average person in Australia would saythat we are a pretty generous nation with a social conscience. When compared with other nations ofthe world, Australia looks after people in need. There would be a lot of people in Australia who wouldsay that we are extremely generous to Aboriginal people. The average Australian person takes pride inseeing 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 ofintentions, successive Governments have tried to address this problem. There is some sort ofresentment that some of the social benefits we try to hand out and the assistance we try to give is notused to best advantage. There is some sort of resentment when people see public money not beingput to the best use. I listened to the speeches made by previous Opposition speakers, and I agree withthem. In my capacity as Minister for Education, I travelled widely throughout the State. I was asked bythe Department of Education to fund special programs in the Torres Strait island schools and inAboriginal schools in the peninsula region north of Cairns. On one particular occasion, I called atKowanyama to open a school that had an enrolment of 250 pupils. I was there as Minister forEducation to open the building and there were fewer than 50 children in attendance. The same thingoccurred recently in Aurukun, and that brought home to me the fact that there is a basis for theresentment. Perhaps it has been done the wrong way, but one cannot deny that there is a resentmentout 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 Governmentside of the House obviously believe that this piece of legislation is also going down that path. I do notagree with them. The other day the Premier said—and it is one of the few things on which he and Iagree—that there is a responsibility on the Aboriginal people themselves. If they are going to makeit—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 morearticulate and self-assured, but we will be doing them a disservice if we give them exclusive use of landsthat 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, theActs Interpretation Amendment Bill. Honourable members will recall that I took exception to the use ofextrinsic 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 ofwhat the law should be. I was alarmed when I read the Minister's second-reading speech and thePreamble—and I am reminded of the comments made by the honourable member for Warrego—tonote words such as "dispossessed", and "former ownership". The Labor Government has somemembers who are learned in the law. They have overlooked an important fact, and I must sound a note


of warning at this stage. The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill, which allows the courts to draw onsecond-reading speeches in arriving at decisions, will create a minefield that could cause great divisionsin this nation. There are better ways of overcoming the problems than those provided in this Bill. It is ofparamount importance to preserve the togetherness that has developed in Australia, but thisGovernment 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 forAboriginal and Islander Affairs. One would have thought that she would have taken charge of thepreparation of this legislation, but I understand that certain people in her department were drawing upthis legislation. The Premier being the person he is—very vain—perceived the opportunity to enjoy apolitical honeymoon and seized the chance to grab the high moral ground. He realised there was awidely held expectation in the Aboriginal community and announced, "There will be land rightslegislation coming forward." What has eventuated is a bit of a let-down, and he is now turning todamage control.

In the first instance, the Premier insulted his own Minister, and I do not know why she does notresign. He took control of the legislation away from her, and Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and the Premierwere cloistered in the Premier's office. They put together this legislation and the Premier made all theannouncements. There were two different types of announcements in relation to the Government'spolicy, and suddenly the crabs started to come out. The Premier decided that the Minister should cometo the fore and that he would step back like the Duke of Plaza Toro, who was the last man into battleand the first man out. Now the Premier is posturing and saying, "These people want too much. I amgoing to save Queensland. I am it. I am the bloke who is going to save the situation.", but he did nothold 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 thislegislation. They know they have been conned. I do not believe that urban Aborigines think that landrights equals self-esteem, which equals progress. I urge the people concerned to think about thislegislation very carefully. I believe that Australian society has the capacity to help Aboriginal andIslander people through the provision of Government services, but if the Government takes action thatcreates 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 theproposal for this legislation, I said at the outset that it was the most


divisive proposal that anyone could suggest and probably one of the cruelest propositions thatanyone—be he black, white or brindle—could put forward. I said that because he has raised the hopesand expectations of Aborigines and Islanders with the full knowledge that he would never be able tofollow through. The Premier knew that those hopes and aspirations would become mere illusions andwould ultimately be dashed. That is exactly what has happened. A few months ago, the Premier putforward this proposal but provided no guidelines. He raised in Aborigines and Islanders the hope thattheir 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 coordinatingcouncils were very much in line with ALP policy. When the Premier found that the issue was becomingtoo hot to handle and that he was getting his fingers burnt, he ran very quickly for cover—at the greatexpense of the Aboriginal people. I believe this is one of the cruelest acts I have ever witnessed and Ido 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 timesthat members of the National Party have no truck at all with the demonstrations that have taken placein the parliamentary precincts. No-one could condone the desecration and sacrilege to which theAustralian and Queensland flags were subjected, nor to the structure of this Parliament. No-one wouldcondone 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 themfor feeling angry?

I believe that the Bill before the Parliament has been badly mishandled. It has been rushed intothe Parliament. Why on earth could the Bill have not lain on the table for a couple of months so thatpeople—be they black, white or brindle—would have had an opportunity to provide input? If theGovernment wanted to do something about Aboriginal land rights, it should have provided anopportunity for opinion to be expressed by all cross-sections of society. This legislation was notnecessary, 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 Aboriginalpeople, just as they have had a great deal to do with people from all walks of life. It does not matterwhich social strata a person comes from, the colour of his skin or his creed; the National Party believesthat the only way for Queensland to advance is by all the people working together. If the Governmentbecomes aware of disadvantaged people, of course moves must be made to help them. The emphasisin this legislation should have been placed on that approach, and I was part of the moves that weremade in 1984 to achieve that aim. I commend the member for Flinders on his speech. He is certainlysteeped in knowledge of the Aboriginal and Islander people, because he has lived among them. Manymembers 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 thePickanjinnie Creek at Wallumbilla. That is not a patronising approach. It is simply a matter of workingand playing together, which is the way it should be.

The moment that we start bringing down legislation that causes division or separate advancementfor different people, that is when trouble will occur. It will cause divisiveness and we will have blackagainst black, white against white and then white against black, which is the last thing that this Stateneeds. We have witnessed examples of those occurrences around the world and we should be steeringaway from them. When I was elected as a member of Parliament in 1983, Woorabinda, which is in theBaralaba/Duaringa district, was in my electorate. As I had never been there, I was keen to visit


Woorabinda and observe conditions there. I had heard much about Aboriginal communities and wasapprehensive about what I would discover. My first impression of Woorabinda was not as had beenpainted many times in the media, that it was a ramshackle shanty town; it was not. At that time, it had apopulation of 600 or 700 people. It had paved streets, water and sewerage, schools, hospitals, socialclubs, sporting clubs, 60 000 or 70 000 acres of land, 2 000 or 3 000 head of cattle and irrigation fromthe creek. I was impressed and started to take a real interest in that community. I found the people hada wonderful nature. They were the sorts of people I could easily warm to, and I did. Because I enjoyedthat experience so much, during the three years that Woorabinda was in my electorate I spent moretime there than I spent at any other town in my electorate. I learnt very much from the Aboriginalpeople. They were trusting people. I thought that the last thing on earth that we could ever do would beto 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 committeewhich investigated the massive process of bringing forward the Aboriginal legislation that wasintroduced in 1984. We did not achieve that by visiting the Aboriginal and Islander communities andtelling them what we thought they should have; it was a listening process. We wanted to see what theywanted rather than raise their hopes and expectations. They did not have grand ideas or massive ambitclaims. 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 Ibelieve that they achieved similar benefits from the process. We gave them the same authority andresponsibilities as local authorities, with provision for them to make their own by-laws. It meant that thepermit system was abolished. Just as they were able to shop in our towns, we were also able to visittheir 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 peoplefrom outside, be they black, white or brindle, coming in and telling them what to do. They wanted lawsto 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 experienceat that. Much has to be done in the area of accountability. Another problem relates to alcoholism, whichaffects 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 Aboriginalcommunities. Alcohol has a greater effect on Aborigines than on other races and it is destroying theirrace. In time, they will realise that that is happening. We must devote ourselves to alleviating problemswith education and health as well as the alcohol problem. If we devote ourselves to that area, we willhave a better chance of integrating the two communities in the next 50 or 100 years than we will byraising people's hopes by offering land rights that do not exist, by offering them national parks and thentaking them back, and by offering mineral rights, quarrying rights and forestry rights and then denyingthem those rights. We should not be giving Aboriginal people false hopes and expectations. We shouldbe 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, theChairman 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 originalExecutive Building."


They were trying to give the Premier an indication of where it was so that he would not miss it. The lettercontinued—

"The aforementioned concerns arise from the fact that, while the Council made every attemptto meet an impossible deadline set by the Premier's Department for the Council's submission withregard to the legislation now before the House, and, despite the Premier's Department havingsubsequently extended that deadline for this Council, along with extended deadlines for a numberof other ATSIC Regional Councils in southern Queensland, the Government proceeded, in themeanwhile, 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 soaptly as such indecent haste, it did not see fit, at any time, to pay ATSIC Regional Councils inQueensland 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 wereunauthorized to provide Councils with enough details of the legislation for Councils to adopt aproperly informed approach to the preparation of submissions."

The Government claims constantly to be accountable and open, yet it treats people like that. It is adisgrace. The letter continues—

"However, from such limited and hurried briefings and a subsequent de facto briefing alongsimilar lines at a general land rights conference in Cairns, it became clear that the Governmentwould seek to court the acquiescence of the so-called 'real Aborigines' of the far north ofQueensland, in enshrining even further in legislation the dispossession of urban and ruralAborigines in the rest of the State; and it was clearly suggested at this conference that any form ofland rights would be the sole preserve only of those who might adopt the stance of the pristinenoble savage in relative isolation and removed from the effects of the white invasion, the full bruntof 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 areto survive only on a postage stamp in much the same way the Scottish Highlander survives only ona 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 formof land rights in the Far North.

As it now turns out, the Government has not even done this, and to call its legislation a landrights 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 CommonLaw 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 thekind of Federalist collusion that usually characterises the Coalition Parties, is doing the FederalGovernment's dirty work by 'giving us something to shut us up' so we will not blow away the Houseof 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 isconsidered 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 hourand during the passage of the Bill through the House, it is not too late for the legislation to beamended substantially or, preferably—since we have little trust in the Government's intentions inthis matter, withdrawn completely.


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 areunable 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 walkingdistance 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 Aboriginalpeople now think of this Government—a Government which held out such hope to them. TheOpposition believes that the Government should be addressing the real issues. If the Government isreally going to try to advance Aboriginal people and integrate them in society, it should beconcentrating on giving them as much assistance as possible instead of raising their hopes anddashing them.

I believe that overall this debate has been conducted in a responsible fashion. I believe that allhonourable members genuinely have the feelings of Aboriginal people at heart. Although all legislationaffects people, not all legislation affects all people as deeply as this piece of legislation does. It will belandmark legislation in that it has raised and then destroyed the hopes of Aboriginal people. I think thatin their heart of hearts, members of the Government will feel badly about that when this legislation ispassed 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 beentrusted with the drafting of the legislation. The Premier decided to take that task from her and draftthe legislation himself. It was done in conjunction with producer groups, the mining council and otherbodies throughout the State. I have spoken to a number of those producer groups and people involvedin the mining industry. They were told that, unless they accepted this legislation, they were going to copland rights legislation in its entirety, which meant getting something similar to the Northern Territorymodel. 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 thepeople 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 toldthat they had no choice. They said that a gun was held at their heads. They had to agree to thislegislation, or that is what they would get. That is how this Government treats people. To hell with theAboriginal and Islander people! The Government is going to make a political deal so that there can bean 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 thislegislation—absolutely none at all. This is probably the most tragic piece of legislation that I have seenintroduced in the Parliament. It cruelly destroys the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people. TheOpposition opposes the Bill in its entirety.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (9.29 p.m.): Like my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, I believe thatthe Aboriginal Land Bill is one of division. I feel sorry for every Aboriginal in this place tonight and forevery Aboriginal in Queensland because this is a slur on them. What this Government is doing toAboriginal people is a total no-no. In its last few years the previous National Party Government putAboriginal people in this State


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 outsideParliament House a couple of days ago and last week. It is unfortunate that the Aboriginal peoplebecame a little bit irate outside here last week, but I believe they were not a true representation of theAboriginal people as I know them. I grew up in the west with black people. I went to school with them, Iworked with them and I played football with them. Many of them are very good friends of mine. Theyare people I hold in very high respect, and I have very high regard for them. The Government has donethe wrong thing here. As Marshall Perron said in the Northern Territory, "You have had consultation withwhite lawyers from Canberra who do not understand what Aboriginal people are about, who do notunderstand what land rights are about."What we are about in this country is democracy . We live in1991. I do not agree with the atrocities that happened in 1788 when the first white man came to thiscountry. What we have been trying to do in recent years is overcome the problems that haveconfronted 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 wouldnot have a damn clue. It is only a short while ago that this Government was proclaiming national parkswithin this State. I am in favour of national parks if they are proclaimed in the right areas and under theright title. But they are now going to be handed over to the Aboriginal people. The parks were put thereto preserve a part of our heritage. All people, whether they be black, white, or brindle, are a part of theheritage 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 andlook at what they tried to achieve in the United States. They did achieve things. They had black andwhite people working together. If the Government continues with its present attitude, it will create adivision in this country for ever and a day. As I said a while ago, lack of consultation has been thedown-fall of this Government. It does not understand the Aboriginal people, and it never had the correctconsultation with them. A short time ago, my leader mentioned the problems that the white manbrought 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 hadland rights under the National Party Government—but health, education and self-management byAborigines in their own right. That is what they want. They want self-management in their own right. BobKatter—probably one of the greatest Ministers in charge of Aboriginal affairs that this State has everhad— 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 willquote a few of those achievements, and the honourable member for Manly will be quiet after I havefinished. I have a letter addressed to the Honourable the Premier of this State, Mr Goss, from a JeffMcLean, who is the Chairman


of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. The Government did not have the decency to consult with thisman 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 theACC even though we are the only statutory body set up under Queensland legislation to advise thegovernment and our elected local government councils are the present land trustees of DOGITcommunities. We make regular decisions regarding land use, infrastructure, housing and townplanning."

The Government did not have the manners to consult with the Aboriginal Coordinating Council. That iswhat 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 notwant to hear any more from them, either. What were the achievements of the Aboriginal people incommunities 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 aNational Party Government. This Government is now endeavouring to take it away from them and todivide their own ranks. The Aboriginal people wanted the right to own their own land and their ownhomes, and that is exactly what they were given. Under this ALP Goss administration, all of the 7 millionacres of the DOGIT land will be taken from those people and the owner of it will be the QueenslandGovernment. If that is what the Government calls Aboriginal land rights, the Government can take meto 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 Aboriginalaffairs. 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 storesin Aboriginal and Islander communities ran at a $408,000 loss. In 1983-84, they ran at a $229,435loss. After the National Party Government granted them self-management rights which allowed them tomanage the stores themselves, those losses were reversed and in 1984-85 a profit of $816,990 wasrecorded. Those people had something to work for and something to live for. They ran the stores at aprofit. 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 headof cattle. In 1983-84, that rose to 5 835 head of cattle, an increase of 504 per cent. That occurredbecause the people were given something to work for and achieve for themselves. The list goes on andon. Prior to 1983, there were three businesses on the communities. At June 1989, that figure hadgrown to 52, an increase of 1 633 per cent. Credit for that must go to the National Party Government.


What does this Government intend to do? It will take things away from them. In 1983-84, there were 40people, including two apprentices, who were employed in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandbuilding 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 Ifeel that members opposite have grasped it. I feel sorry for the Aboriginal people because they will belosing their deed of grant in trust land. If the Government had the intestinal fortitude to consult withsomebody such as Bob Katter or even some of the Aboriginal council members who understood thereal 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 andagain yesterday.

Before I resume my seat, I want to point out that the real, fair-dinkum Aboriginal people in thisState are earning a quid and fighting hammer and tong for what they have been given in the past andwhat they want to hang on to. They understand what white man has given to them over the past 200years. They are happy with what they were given under the National Party Government, but thisGovernment is taking it away from them. Aboriginals are people, too. The moment we forget that theyare people, we are in real trouble.

Mr Hobbs: There are only five speakers out of 55 over there. Do you think they are scared ofthem?

Mr JOHNSON: They are scared, all right. We know how scared members opposite are. Lastweek, 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 wasyour 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 Oppositionspokesman, and Bob Katter. Who were the people who were arbitrating between those people and thisMinister—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?


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 onTuesday, will it not? There will be more than condolence motions. Mr Speaker, I do not want toaggravate 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, Ishould say, the dilemma that we will be in after tonight. What the Government has done to theAboriginal 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 Aboriginalpeople 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 wantto see what you people want to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will make his comments through the Chair. I warnhim about that now.

Mr JOHNSON: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but members opposite are trying to provoke me. But theywill not provoke me on this matter, I can tell them that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is holding his own in dealing with theprovocation.

Mr JOHNSON: I wish to put on record the great work that Bob Katter and the former NationalParty Government did for the Aboriginal people. I also put on record the great work that the NationalParty 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 thisBill. We believe that some of the proposals in it will create great divisiveness in Australia. It is interestingthat the Premier has taken over the direction of the legislation. Several Opposition members havedescribed the manner in which that has been done. It was absolutely essential for the Premier toexpedite this delicate piece of legislation with the least possible amount of media coverage. Memberssaw very little about this legislation in the media. I believe that it was kept very quiet because theGovernment did not want it to cause any problems. Only when people became aware of it diddemonstrations occur. The expectations of Aboriginal people were raised considerably by the promiseof 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 concernedabout that. Although I do not believe that they are entitled to those rights, those suggestions weremooted. Their expectations were raised because of that.

The absorption of national park and tidal lands in accordance with the Governor in Council'sdeclaration is not warranted, because those areas have been set aside for all Queenslanders to use forrecreational activities.


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 thatcategory. In her second-reading speech, the Minister referred to the report of the Royal Commissioninto Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which stated—

"The nexus between inadequate or insufficient land provision for Aboriginal people andbehaviour which leads to a high rate of arrests and detention of Aboriginal people has beenrepeatedly 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 tojustify. I see no difference between land rights and those words of the royal commission. How will landrights help those people?

There is currently a substantial exodus of Aborigines from country areas to the cities. If there is aneed for them to maintain identity with the spiritual and cultural aspects of their land, why is there a driftto the more populated areas of this State? I believe that this identifies one of the major problems thatAboriginal people face. Land rights in itself will not better the lot of most Aborigines. In fact, thislegislation has disillusioned many of the activists, and has raised with many other Queenslanders theissue of racial prejudice. The demonstrations that have occurred within the grounds of the parliamentaryprecinct will galvanise opinion on both Aboriginal and white Queenslanders. I am firmly of the opinionthat many Aborigines would be disgusted with the behaviour of those demonstrators. My constituentshave rung my electorate office to vent their concerns about the damage that is being done to theproperty of the Parliament of this State. They are angry about the replacing of our flag by thatvociferous 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 tothat land forever. When the National Party was in Government, it adopted a commendable andresponsible attitude to Aborigines. It gave them something that they had never had before. Memberswill recall the years of Labor Government. They heard Bob Katter say that, when he took up his portfolioas the relevant Minister, Aborigines were disadvantaged. Under this legislation, Aborigines have lessauthority 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 Tribunaland the trustees, thus reducing the authority that was vested with Aborigines under the previouslegislation. There appear to be no problems with the granting of quarrying and forestry rights. Manymembers 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 inAborigines having the right to vote in this great land of ours. That is of some significance. Until theintroduction into Parliament of this legislation, public awareness of the land rights issue has been verylow key. Only the minimum amount of time was allowed for this Bill to be circulated in the widercommunity. That practice is becoming a hallmark of this Government, which purports to be open andaccountable, especially where sensitive issues are involved. I took this Bill to people in my electorate toperuse but, because it is being rammed through the House in the absolute minimum amount of timethat a Bill is required to lay on the table of the House, they have not


had the opportunity to look at it or comment on it. That is disgraceful. Why could the Government nothave left it for a couple of weeks, a month or two months? Is there something in the Bill that theGovernment wants to hide? There must have been some reason. Why did the Bill lay on the table ofthe House for only seven days? Why were the people in the wider community not given the opportunityto 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 definitionas to what qualifies a person to be a bona fide Aborigine. The qualification set down in clause 2.02 isobscure. The clause states that an Aborigine is a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia. Theterminology is very, very broad. Genuine Aborigines are concerned about what might be termed adilution of their race. At what point are the traces of Aboriginal extraction obliterated by the infusion ofother races? Many Queenslanders would feel comfortable with the recognition of the genuineAborigines and their needs but are disturbed when they see those people of mixed race appearing todominate the agenda. Census figures indicate that between 1981 and 1986 there was an increase of37 per cent in the number of Aboriginal and Islander people in Queensland, 65 per cent of whom werein Brisbane.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those statistics have been given in the debate. I suggest that the memberfor Hinchinbrook does not get repetitive.

Mr ROWELL: I will not go on with it. I just wanted to reiterate them. That clearly indicates that theAborigines 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 Queenslandand Australian flags and replaced them with a symbolic token of division in the Australian society. Thedeed of grant in trust legislation went a long way towards recognising those lands over which Aborigineshad specific rights. It allowed the people in those areas to have a high level of determination over theirown destiny and, by and large, those people ran operations that allowed them to maintain a life-style towhich they had been accustomed for centuries. Societies are changing continually and, in the past 200years, the Aboriginal people have changed also. The Aboriginal Coordinating Council furnished me witha copy of a letter that it sent to the Premier raising its concern about the lack of consultation with a largenumber of recognised Aboriginal bodies in Queensland. The council raised the point of the political andmoral danger of expediency and were at a loss to understand why the legislative review committee thatwas inquiring into legislation relating to the management of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities would have no input into the report, which is due in August. The council made the point ofsaying that, if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Even the National Party would not act with suchindecent 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 sufficienttime 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 thebest interests of Aborigines in this State. Those matters should pivot around allowing Aboriginesdetermination of their own destiny. It would not be appropriate to condemn the past 200 yearsAustralian history with recriminations. I have had a close association with many Aborigines in Inghamand have a great deal of respect for them. I have worked with them and I have had a good associationwith them in a number of sporting activities. They are a fine group of people. I have found them to beindustrious and


concerned with the image that some of their race portray. Social problems such as drunkenness are asad reflection on a very proud race of people. It is disturbing to see such drunkenness. The matters thatrequire attention in the context of the legislation will determine the future of Aborigines. If they wish toenjoy the trappings of a European society, it is not unreasonable that they should contribute to theinfrastructure in which they live. The previous legislation gave Aborigines the choice in the manner andstyle of life that they wished to maintain. However, I do not think that they can have their cake and eatit, 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 donein very substantial ways. To do that, the Government must show leadership. It is possible. Currently, weare doing that through TAFE colleges in Ingham. A number of Aborigines attend those colleges. That isfine. 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 theymust make a decision.This legislation has been imposed on Aborigines with very little consultation as tohow 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. Thisis a very important factor. In the past there have been Aboriginal councils. I ask: what will happen tothose councils. What will the infrastructure be? Will they continue? These are the sorts of questions thatmust be answered. What does the trust mean to them? Where will they fit in with the trust? There areno 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 thesepeople to reach a point at which they will be self-sufficient. They must not be dependent on dolequeues. That is denigrating and I do not think they want that. Those problems can be overcome byfurther education, an option that must be considered very seriously. Education and health are essentialfor the well-being of their descendants. I am aware of the existence of Aboriginal health programs thatare concerned with a number of diseases and dietary deficiencies that plague Aborigines. This serviceis provided from Ingham to the surrounding districts. These health problems have been a problem inthe past and this matter can and should be addressed. Regular clinics have been conducted in anumber of areas and the people working in the health service in that region are doing a fine job. Thislegislation is not warranted. It has raised expectations and will only cause unrest amongst the widercommunity 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 beenlittle or no media coverage of it. The Government has told the people of Queensland very little aboutwhat this legislation means to them. This is disastrous. People are entitled to gain a knowledge of whatlegislation is all about. The indecent haste with which this legislation is going through the House typifiesthe Government's attitude to it.

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (10.02 p.m.): I must report to this Parliament that the greatmajority of people in the electorate of Peak Downs are vehemently opposed to this legislation. It is theirview that there should be one rule for all. There should


not be discrimination in Queensland, which is literally what is happening under this legislation. There isno 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 totallydiscriminated against. I assure members that that is the way the people of Peak Downs feel. I will givethe House the names of some Aborigines who are diametrically opposed to what this Parliament isdoing 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 moneyby pushing a lawn-mower from Comet to Emerald on Good Friday. He subsequently qualified as anambulance 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. Inaddition, Chooky James and his family were outstanding in the community. A little while before he diedhe was granted the prestigious award of citizen of the year in Emerald. That shows what Aboriginalpeople 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 railwayganger in Clermont. During that time he has been in control of men and is probably one of the verybest in the business. He raised a big family and one of his sons is Michael Mainhardt, who hasrepresented 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 ClarryLannamore, who was the nightman and did a brilliant job. In addition, there was Clancy Booth, whoused to collect the bread at my bakery and deliver it to the Woorabinda Aboriginal settlement. He was abrilliant man who did a great job. He always acknowledged the good deal he got from the Duaringabakery 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 verywell—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 providingnames.

I will take another tack which also relates to the Bill. Not long after I completed my apprenticeship Ican remember starting as a baker in Duaringa. In those days, Woorabinda Aboriginal settlement was agreat place to go to. The settlement is now very different from what it used to be in those days. Therewere some great Aboriginal people who worked very hard. They were being trained as mechanics; theyhad their own football teams; they used to run their own radio station in Duaringa; they used to growtheir own vegetables; they used to look after their own cattle; and they also used


to run their own shops. On Saturday nights, I would often go out there and watch the supervised boxingmatches that used to take place. I also used to enjoy watching the football matches. Those were thegreat days of Woorabinda, and it was a pleasure to be able to go there. However, something has gonewrong.

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 Imake is that, since alcohol and bar facilities were introduced, things have generally become muchworse than they used to be. Gone are the days when Aboriginal people maintained the settlement to ahigh standard. Many of the settlement's residents now just sit around; they do not seem to have anysense 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 arethat the people at Woorabinda do not seem to have any sense of destiny. Something that used to bea part of the community is no longer there, and that is a very worrying matter. I had hoped that theMinister 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 ofthe state some of the others are in. In fact, I understand that they are very much worse thanWoorabinda.

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 sayingthat something has gone wrong with the culture. The Minister should try to encourage these people todo a little bit more for themselves. If they were able to do that, I am sure that they and everybody elsewould be a lot happier. It was my intention in participating in this debate to put forward my views withouttaking all night to do it. I wanted to mention on the floor of this Parliament a few of the great Aboriginesof this State. Having said that, Mr Speaker, I thank you for having listened so attentively. Even thoughmost 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 falseexpectations in Aboriginal communities and incited Aborigines to protest when they realised they hadbeen hoodwinked, it is with a degree of regret that I commence my short contribution to this debate bycondemning the demonstrators who were allowed to denigrate the Parliament of Queenslandyesterday. Mr Speaker, I am sure you would agree that the Parliament of Queensland is the bulwark ofdemocracy in this State. The demonstrators who were permitted to continue their seditious conductwithin 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 removingthe Australian and Queensland ensigns from the mastheads and replacing them with flags purportingto represent the Aboriginal community. I query whether such conduct has the support of the genuinepeople in the wider Aboriginal community.

The great majority of Australians respect what the Australian flag stands for. It is the traditionalsymbol of the Australian nation and should be respected. Mr Speaker, you and I know that millions ofAustralians, including some very fine Aborigines, have been proud to fight for the Australian way of lifeand to die for our way of life—for our country and for their country—under that ensign. Surely, it is theultimate humiliation


of this Parliament that the ensign, or standard, of the Australian nation and the Queensland flag werelowered and trampled into the dust, and then replaced by the flag that is accepted as a symbol of theAustralian Aborigine. This is a very serious issue. Yesterday, that group of demonstrators effectivelytook possession of the precincts of the Queensland Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been extremely tolerant. The member for Auburn's views on theflag are his personal views, and he is entitled to express them, but not during a debate on land rights. Iask 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 seethat 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 ofpeople, whether they be rebels, in an army, in a navy or whatever, take possession of something, theylower the flag—the standard—of the country which previously possessed it and they raise their ownstandard. Quite frankly, that is what the group of demonstrators did yesterday. They lowered theAustralian ensign and replaced it with their own flag which has been accepted as representative of theAboriginal people in this nation. That is land rights—land grab rights—in the true sense of the word. Itdoes no credit to the Government of Wayne Goss or to the Premier himself that the events ofyesterday and last week were allowed to bring shame on all Australians and to set back the just causeof the Aboriginal people of Australia. In claiming that those of us who sought to speak out against suchsedition, against such sacrilege, were posturing and hiding behind the flag, the Premier is beyondcontempt. The Australian flag may not have any significance for Wayne Goss, but for those millions ofAustralians, including genuine Aboriginal people who have served under it for 90 years, its desecrationby a group of demonstrators is intolerable conduct which no true Australians should condone. Finally onthat aspect——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope so. I have been more than tolerant. I do not see the relevance thatyour comments have to the Bill. I hope this is your final remark; otherwise I will ask you to stop on thattheme.

Mr HARPER: Finally on that aspect of land rights and the demonstration for land rights, I citewhat 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 thewar veterans (which includes aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) who fought, and in manycases, died under our Australian Flag, to preserve the freedoms under which they were able toexpress 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 ofland tenure which the indigenous people of North America hold, because you will recall discussing thatvery fact with indigenous people both in the United States and in Canada. I can say without any chanceof contradiction that the deed of grant in trust that was granted to Aboriginal people in Queenslandsurpasses that which is available and has been available to the Indian people of the United States andof 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


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 ofthe United States, from Washington. Queensland has every right to be proud of the deed of grant intrust land. If there is one area of criticism that I have, it is that the previous Government, and thisGovernment, for that matter, in the past 18 months, owing to problems within the Department of LandManagement that could be cured, have been tardy in subleasing areas within those deed of grantlands to Aboriginal people—the indigenous people—who have the ability and the desire to take upthose lands and to do something for themselves. If there has been any failure, that is where the failurehas existed and does exist. New legislation is not needed to remedy that. All that was needed was forthe present Minister for Land Management or his predecessors to take action to make sure that justclaims by those conscientious and capable people were met promptly. In that regard, it is interestingthat one of my colleagues who was in the Chamber for a short time mentioned Woorabinda, which is inmy electorate. That community includes people who are capable of running their own show and whoseAboriginal council supports private ownership through subleasing arrangements within that community. Imust say that I do not agree with the remarks made by the member for Peak Downs about the MimosaClub. The Aboriginal people at Woorabinda are handling with a reasonable degree of success problemsthat 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, Woorabindahas been able to develop, and is continuing to develop. For instance, water resources that were verydifficult to provide and which cost a lot of money—a lot of Australian taxpayers' money—have nowbrought about a reasonable water supply. Housing is being developed, and the infrastructure that goeswith it.

I believe that, given the type of assistance that this Government and the Federal Governmentshould continue to give, the Aboriginal people have no need for the type of legislation that honourablemembers are debating tonight. What they need is meaningful assistance to stand on their own feetand, 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 aroundTaroom 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, ofcourse, in Australia. Given the opportunity and continued assistance from State Governmentdepartments such as the Department of Primary Industries and the Water Resources Commission, theyshould succeed, and they will succeed.

Like so many other initiatives of Goss Labor, the legislation that honourable members are debatingtonight is really only window-dressing. It is a shabby political stunt against—not for, but against—theAboriginal people of Queensland. Is it any wonder that some of them succumbed to those who seek tolead them in demonstrations? It is unfortunate, but it is understandable. The member for Yerongamade much of inalienable freehold title, or a deed of grant in fee simple. Of course, one of thedifficulties is that Aboriginal people and the great majority of members of the total community do notreally understand that a deed of grant is simply a term for freehold title. The National Party Governmentgave that deed of grant in trust to protect the Aboriginal people, to make sure that the land could notbe 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 bitabout it, they will appreciate—just as the United States and the Canadian Government did—that unlessthere 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 havebeen granted to the Aboriginal people for all time, and they should not have the ability to sell them toanyone other than members of their own race. That is the procedure in America, and that is theprocedure that was followed in Queensland. They should be able to sublease


the lands within their own race, and they should be able to hand them down from mother to daughterand from father to son or to sell them within their own race, but they should not, and must never beallowed 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 isgiving 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 aGoss Government, another Labor Government or a conservative Government—to take it back, for it tobe repossessed, even then to be returned to some other Aboriginal group. I make that point because Iam 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 Aboriginalcommunities instead of posturing. As I said, it is time that this Government and Wayne Goss got outand helped Aboriginal people to develop their natural pride in achievement. They do have a naturalpride in achievement, and Wayne Goss Labor should be getting out and encouraging them to becomean integral part of the total community. That is the message that members of this Parliament should bedelivering tonight. Aboriginal people should be assisted in developing their lands, which they alreadyhold under freehold title in fee simple. The Government should not engage in window-dressing. Foronce in its term of Government, let the Goss Labor Party be genuine in its endeavours to help theseAustralians develop opportunities for themselves. They deserve it; they are entitled to it; and, if it isgiven 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 thetime of the House. However, I do want to put on record that this Bill demonstrates the hypocrisy of theGoss Labor Government. It has shown a total lack of faith in the Aboriginal people. I do not condonewhat happened outside Parliament House yesterday. I spoke to one of the Aboriginal elders from theCherbourg community, who also does not condone what happened outside this place yesterday, buthe said, "I can understand it because these people are frustrated." They have been told that theywould be given plenty, and they have been given nothing. This Bill is all about demonstrating thehypocrisy of this Government.

The Aboriginal people are a very proud race. They are proud of their culture and of theirachievements. There are many people within the community of Cherbourg in my electorate who areresponsible citizens. I refer to people who have been named by my colleague the Honourable BobKatter. 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 artistextraordinaire, Stephen Bond, who has sold paintings which are now hanging in the Qantas VIP loungeat Sydney airport. I was very happy to nominate Stephen last year for the Channel 9 Young AchieversAward and was very pleased when he was highly commended. Stephen is an artist extraordinairebecause 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 tocombat. It has given him confidence.

That is what the Government, the Opposition, and the Parliament in the State of Queenslandshould be doing, giving these people a chance by boosting their confidence. Many people in thecommunity look down their nose because they say the Aborigines cannot handle their alcohol. Ifalcohol is placed in front of anybody with a lot of spare time and nothing to do a problem will result. Inthe short time that I intend to speak here tonight, I would like to pay a tribute to Aboriginal women. Ihave so often seen Aboriginal women as the cornerstone within the family and the society. They arethe 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 whoplay a very active part in the Cherbourg community.


People go to them for help when they have problems. Councillor Ada Simpson of the CherbourgCommunity Council is one person who really stands out in that regard. I am very proud of the people atCherbourg. 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 ourproperty. The Aboriginal lady used to bounce me up and down on her knee. All I can remember is thather name was Lucy. Her skin was very black but her heart was as pure as snow. I have also had a lot todo with the community at Cherbourg since I have become the member for Barambah. I wasinstrumental in convincing this Government to give them the first emu farm in Queensland. The firstthing the Aboriginal people want to show anyone visiting Cherbourg today is their emu farm, becausethey are proud of it. Recently, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I was very fortunate tobe able to visit most of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. The point was made very vividly tome that they are proud of their achievements. Wherever we went after we talked to the councillors, theleaders of the community, they would always want to show you the things in their community that theywere proud of. My colleague, Mr Harper tonight mentioned the Woorabinda settlement. I believe that ofthe communities that we saw it was one of the really shining lights. The people there also demonstratedthat they do have an ability to manage land, because their land is a real jewel in the crown of Aboriginalachievements in this State. The land is well managed and the operation is run at a profit. I was verydismayed recently to see that when the Woorabinda community outlaid some money on racehorsesthat 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 havebeen 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 hypocrisyof this Government in what will be brought about as a result of this Bill, because what we are trying todo is build the confidence of the people. If we double-cross them all the time, how can we build theirconfidence? Mr Speaker, I could go on and on and say lots of things about the people, but obviouslytime is getting on, and you are getting frustrated. I think I have made my point. I certainly cannotsupport 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, compassionateand 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 ofan exception in the case of the member for Callide, who expressed a clear and genuine support forAboriginal land rights. She is, however, grossly misled as to the provisions of this Bill and its intent. Ascaremongering campaign of disinformation in respect of some of the important features of theAboriginal land rights program, of which this Bill is part, featured throughout the speeches from theother side of the House, and so, too, did their reinterpretation of the meaning of the Aboriginal protestsabout 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 ofheated debate. This Bill was a negotiated settlement. The Pitjantjatjara council entered intonegotiations, but it was supported by the massed presence of Pitjantjatjara people camping at theAdelaide showgrounds. In 1983 in New South Wales, large-scale agitated demonstrations occurred atParliament House, with Aboriginal demonstrators climbing the fences of the New South WalesParliament. Their objections to the Aboriginal Land Rights Bill were focused on the gap between theprovisions of that Bill and the recommendations of the Keane report on which the Bill was based.


Recently, when amendments to the New South Wales Land Rights Act were tabled in that State'sParliament, Aboriginal demonstrators pulled down the gates of that House.

Aboriginal responses to Victorian Aboriginal land rights, as introduced by the Commonwealth, andthe three-page Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Rights Act were also the subject of much acrimoniousdebate. In Victoria, the Aboriginal community remains split on issues, some of which have been raisedin 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 consistentfeatures of the introduction of Aboriginal reforms throughout Australia. Is it any wonder that, after 200years of exploitation, exclusion and oppression, Aboriginal people would feel that whatever reforms arepossible within this context are not enough? I have sympathy for their cause and I commend their rightto demonstrate that cause in Queensland. However, I resile from the violence that occurred yesterdayin the grounds of this House. Nevertheless, the right to peaceful demonstration is a cornerstone of thisGovernment and will remain so in spite of the provocation from either the groups outside or theOpposition parties inside this House.

I am therefore not deterred from this endeavour to introduce Aboriginal land rights and to shift thepower relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Queensland. Most people find changedifficult to accept, and powerless people in particular have always been suspicious of reforms on theirbehalf. The outcome of this historic Bill will become apparent only in its implementation. I look forwardto the real changes which my department and I, using the powers of this legislation, will be able to bringabout in Aboriginal affairs in Queensland. It is wrong to say that there was no consultation or to see theconsultation process as a finite and limited exercise. There has been considerable discussion withAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. It is important to remember that this legislation is not acontrivance of the Government or that consultation commenced only in recent months. Since myappointment as Minister, I have been consulting constantly with Aboriginal people about theiraspirations for land and those issues that this legislation addresses. My department and I havereceived 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 tothe need to prepare their proposals for land rights legislation. Consequently, when members of theworking party met with Aboriginal groups and ATSIC regional councils to discuss the Governmentproposals, it was very clear that considerable thought had been devoted to the issue. This was alsoreflected in the quality of submissions that were put to the Government. I might add that we are notstarting 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 honourablemember for Yeronga mentioned earlier in the debate, that process has been ongoing for the lastcentury. The question of land rights is not new. The subject matter that we are debating is not new. It isnot reasonable to expect that every part of the whole package could be consulted in only a shortperiod. As I said, that consultation process has been and is ongoing.

The Government asked the ATSIC regional councils to coordinate the consultation process on thebasis that ATSIC is the only Statewide consultative body that covers the interests of all Aboriginalpeople in Queensland. I attended as many of those meetings as possible. Resources were alsoprovided to each of those councils to enable them to develop their submissions. The honourablemember 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 twoseparate submissions presented to me over the last 18 months. The first of these was provided in May1990. 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 thevast majority of the ACC's proposals are reflected in the legislation or are capable of beingaccommodated during the process of


implementation. Of the 28 elements of the proposal, only five are outside the scope of this Bill. Inaddition, during the formal consultation process I met with the ACC to discuss the specific proposal. Irang members of the ACC and asked them when I could meet with them. They told me a time and aplace. At that stage, they wished to have that meeting together with the Federation of Land Councils. Iagreed to that, and that is where I met them.

I have here a document which outlines the details of the consultation proposal in which membersof the working party and I participated. I seek leave to table this document and have it incorporated inHansard.

Mr SPEAKER: The normal procedure is that the Chair should see the document. I will have alook at it and make a ruling on its incorporation. The honourable member is allowed to table thedocument.

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 referredto the alleged cultural traits of Aboriginal people. He looked surprised and startled. I wish that Mr Slackwould understand what he is saying when he says it. He asserted that the cultural traits of Aboriginalpeople prevent them from conducting their lives adequately and from planning for the future. Heasserted that they were unable to compete in the twentieth century. Every cultural group, whetherAboriginal, European or of the recent British culture in Australia, is an expression of the humanity of themembers 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 Aboriginalpeople".

Ms WARNER: The honourable member even discriminates amongst Aboriginal people. Allhuman cultures have contributed to the world in which we live. The member for Burnett denies thatAboriginal culture is a worthwhile way of life, that it has contributed to the general Australian way of lifeand that it deserves to survive and be maintained by Aboriginal people. Moreover, the honourablemember goes further to deny that an Aboriginal culture exists. He referred to a cultural void, as ifAboriginal 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 completelymisrepresenting 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 hisconception 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 theirpredecessors, as can be demonstrated by the kilometres of personal files on Aboriginal people that areplaced in the State Archives by my department. Are Aboriginal people cattle to have their ancestrycalculated like animal pedigrees by the member for Burnett and those like him by the use of words suchas "one-eighth blood"? Is a mother to reject her husband and children because the member for Burnettthinks of such children as animals? The claim to be Aboriginal is based on ancestry and culture. We donot ask English, Italians, Greeks or any other ethnic groups to prove


their biological background before we allow them to claim to be members of their culture, because thatis irrelevant and racist.

The definition of "Aborigine", which means "a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia", is a widelyaccepted and commonly used definition in Australian law. The definition can be interpreted on the basisof opinions and findings of the High Court and other appeal courts. An Aboriginal person canlegitimately claim to be Aboriginal if he or she is of some Aboriginal ancestry. An admixture of otherancestry does not invalidate this. Self-identification may be relevant in some circumstances. I refer themember for Burnett to the various court decisions that assist us to understand that determining who, forlegal purposes, is an Aboriginal person is not a simple matter. It can involve not only questions ofgenetics but also a question of culture and identity. The member for Burnett and others like him shouldacquaint themselves with the notions of humanity of the late twentieth century and move on from thelast century.

The history of Queensland and, in particular, the history of Aboriginal people, is not just an oralone. It is documented. Historians continue to bring to our attention the facts of that bloody and brutalhistory. There are those who are still alive today—and I refer to non-Aboriginal Queenslanders—who, ifthey do not feel guilt for what they have done to Aboriginal people, must reconcile that with their God orthemselves. But guilt is not the point of the reform program of this Government in relation to Aboriginalpeople. Social justice and equity underpin our endeavours to introduce land rights to Queensland. Wecannot undo the wrongs of the past, but we can and will restore some of that which has been takenaway from Aboriginal people—their land, the inspiration for their culture, and their dignity. The anecdoteprovided by the member for Burnett about a taxi-driver in New York—incidentally, a black American—isa very colourful herring, but a very revealing one. One New York taxi-driver—a descendant of slavesshipped from Africa to New America—said that he does not want to go to Ghana. What relevance doesthat 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 inthis legislation. I should like to comment on some of them. The suggestion that timber and quarry rightswould have been conferred needs to be set in context. This commitment was given only as a cynicalploy to engage Aboriginal people at Yarrabah as opponents to World Heritage listing. It was adesperate and ill-conceived act that was never acted upon. The suggestion that Aboriginal reserveswould have been handed over to Aboriginal people has no foundation in fact. I am advised by officersof my department that the departmental files show that the former Government was making moves todegazette some of those lands.

I would also like to comment on the ignorance of the honourable member in relation to Aboriginalrelationships with land. Perhaps the honourable member has misunderstood the importance of thelegislation. 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 whoare responsible for the land have that duty all their lives. The National Party's solution resulted in thecontinuing dispossession of Aboriginal owners. Aboriginal councils are elected to fulfil local governmentfunctions, not necessarily to hold title to land. In spite of what the honourable member may wish tobelieve, and which he seeks to corroborate by referring to anonymous Aboriginal informants, Aboriginalpeople do retain knowledge of their country and hold custodial responsibilities for it. It suits thepurposes of the honourable member to pretend that no such tradition is alive today in Queensland. Iassure the member that he is profoundly ignorant and blatantly wrong.

The honourable member for Burnett asked questions about the Preamble to the Aboriginal LandBill, and, in particular, paragraph 8. As the honourable member appears to recognise, the Preambledoes not create or change the law. Let me explain why the Preamble is included. The Preamble canthrow light on the statutory purpose and object,


and could be consulted for the purposes of solving an ambiguity or fixing the connotation of a word thatmay 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 thelanguage is plain and not open to doubt. The two main propositions in paragraph 8 must be beyonddoubt. Firstly, the law in this country has not adequately or appropriately recognised Aboriginal interestsin 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 extinctionof 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, therelationship between the Aboriginal peoples and their land remains unobliterated. Yet, almost twocenturies on, the generally accepted view remains that the common law is ignorant of anycommunal native title or other legal claim of the Aboriginal clans or peoples, even to ancestral triballands 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 thehonourable member's point that she requires special tutoring. That is abundantly apparent to theHouse. The honourable member's confusion is best illustrated by her points on mining. Firstly, shecriticised the Bill for denying Aboriginal people the right to negotiate on mining. For the record, I pointout that that is not true. Clearly, the right to consent involves the right to agree upon the terms ofconsent. Secondly, she says that if the legislation were to allow for negotiations—which it does—thenshe would not support it. The honourable member cannot have her cake and eat it, too. The memberfor Gympie and the member for Warrego added very little to the debate except misinformation. Onceagain, the member for Flinders turned back the clock. The member for Brisbane Central adequatelyaddressed his references to the 1950s.

However, I take issue with the contention of the member for Flinders that it will not be possible tolocate traditional owners. I agree with the member for Flinders that Aboriginal people weredispossessed of their land and removed to reserves throughout the State. However, it is simplyludicrous 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 childrenabout their land. Most Aboriginal people with whom I have spoken are only too aware of their traditionalcountry.

I must comment also on the flagrant misrepresentation by the honourable member for Flindersabout the provisions of the Bill relating to the issue of inalienable freehold title over DOGIT land and theappointment of trustees for the land. I can assure the House and, most importantly, Aboriginal peoplethat 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 thatland. The new title will be issued in place of the deed of grant in trust, once the appropriate trusteeshave been determined, and at no time will the land revert to the Crown. The Minister will not be able tosimply appoint anyone he or she chooses. Rather, the legislation requires that, in appointing trustees tothe transferable land, the Minister must act as far as possible in accordance with Aboriginal traditionfollowing consultation with Aboriginal people. Notably, it is then possible for groups of Aboriginal peopleto claim that land in accordance with principles of Aboriginal land-ownership. These are essentiallyissues of customary law. They are not matters that can be resolved at the polls every three years. Theappropriate analogy to the National Party proposal is that the Brisbane City Council should hold all landin the Brisbane metropolitan area in trust for all the people of Brisbane. Clearly, that is a ridiculousproposition. 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 wasbrought in by the previous Government. Some Opposition members, to their


credit, have said that there are deficiencies in that scheme and that changes should be made. Whatthey have not identified are what changes they support. But the fundamental weakness of the deed ofgrant in trust scheme was exposed by the member for Flinders. He informed the House that thecouncils that are the trustees of the land were meant to parcel out the land to private ownership. Thefact 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 underthe Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act by which plots of DOGIT land aresurrendered to the Crown and leases are granted over it. Under that process, DOGIT land isprogressively becoming Crown land. Once a lease expires, it reverts to the Crown and not to thecommunity. That is a loophole in the land-holding Act that would have alienated vast tracts of DOGITland, had the process that the member for Flinders wanted proceeded. The Bill before the House willremedy the situation by ensuring that DOGIT land and Crown land over which leases have beengranted will all become Aboriginal land held in inalienable freehold title by the appropriate Aboriginaltrustees.

The 15-year sunset clause, as it has been called, intends to set a final deadline for the lodging ofclaims. Claims properly lodged will continue to be heard. The provision relating to 15 years for thelodging of claims is comparable to the provision in the Commonwealth Land Rights Act, which applies inthe Northern Territory. Twenty years has been allowed there, but the hearing of claims by the Aboriginalland commissioners is notoriously slow. Our tribunal will provide a much speedier and less laboriousprocess to enable us to deal with those claims more speedily.

The legislation unquestionably is a major and significant step forward for Aboriginal people. It isonly a step. It is not presented to this House or to Aboriginal people as a panacea for all of theproblems that they face. Rather, the legislation will provide a foundation upon which Aboriginal peoplecan build a future for themselves and their children. Some members opposite seemed to be ratherschizophrenic. 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 lockedinto a position of opposition rather than a position of rationality. I have said before and I repeat in theHouse: this legislation is not the last word in land rights. It cannot be. It has to go through many moreprocesses 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 amendedabout a year after it was introduced. Legislation that is passed through this House is not the end of thestory. That is not the end of the day. Things move. We are part of a democracy. We are a Governmentthat 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 theNational 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 purposesby the National Party, a matter about which Aboriginal people have been agitated for some time. Itremoves the scope of any future Government to requisition land for future public purposes byadministrative action. The Bill provides inalienable freehold title to the Aboriginal reserves, which couldhave been degazetted at any time by a capricious Government and which do not currently giveAboriginal people any secure title. It provides inalienable freehold title to the Aurukun and MorningtonIsland Shire lease areas. Those leases have 37 years left to run and will be revoked and replaced byinalienable freehold titles.

The Bill allows claims to be made to vacant Crown land. That will mean, potentially, that Aboriginalpeople will gain title to a further 2 million hectares in different parts of the State. The Bill allowsAboriginal 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 asnational park is preserved. Therefore, a further 3.8 million hectares, the present national park area, willbecome


claimable. While the conservation values of national park land will remain paramount, Aboriginal peoplewho successfully claim national park land will have their representatives on the board of managementand will develop with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service the plan of management inorder to secure their own land-use interest in those plans.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Bill will give virtually all Aboriginal people in Queensland thepotential to claim land. Aboriginal people may claim land on the basis of traditional affiliation, historicalassociation 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 notbe examined by faceless bureaucrats. Rather, they will be considered by an independent tribunalwhose members have the knowledge and expertise to reach decisions based on a proper balance ofinterests. 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 ofAurukun and Mornington Island and former Aboriginal reserves. The Bill will extend the existingstatutory provisions to allow Aboriginal people to control mining on those lands claimed on the basis oftraditional ownership or historical association. This allows Aboriginal people to give or withhold consentto 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 thepublic interest can be demonstrated. The Bill introduces provisions that will ensure that Aboriginalpeople can benefit from mining on their lands. The Bill creates the ability for the Crown to pay aproportion of mining royalties to Aboriginal people affected by mining and for the benefit of allAboriginal people in Queensland. The Bill expands the capacity of Aboriginal people to manage theirlands in accordance with Aboriginal tradition and to benefit from economic opportunities that may flowfrom 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 essentiallimitation is that the land cannot be sold or mortgaged. The Bill prevents the Crown from taking awayland 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 forspecial legislation, the Director-General of the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal andIslander 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 forAboriginal people and providing Aboriginal people themselves with the power to manage that land. I willbe able to respond to the many Aboriginal people who have made requests for areas of land by givingthem advice on how they can now proceed according to the steps set out in this Bill to have their landinterests recognised. In the coming years, more and more Aboriginal groups will benefit from theprovisions of this Bill. It is in the implementation of these provisions that the worth of this Bill will bedemonstrated. 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. Thedocument 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. WarnerCouncil R. Rolfe

N. PearsonTorres Strait ATSIC 3 hours R. RolfeRegional Council(which includes theIsland Co-ordinatingCouncil)


Palm Island/Yarrabah 5 hours Hon. A. WarnerATSIC Regional R. RolfeCouncil N. Pearson

M. LangtonRockhampton ATSIC 4 1/2 hours R. RolfeRegional Council M. LangtonWadja Wadja/ 1 1/2 hours R. RolfeWakka Wakka M. LangtonATSIC RegionalCouncilsBrisbane ATSIC 5 hours Hon. A. WarnerRegional Council T. Grau(Indigenous Council R. Hurleyof Deputies) M. LangtonTownsville ATSIC 4 hours T. GrauRegional Council R. Hurley

M. LangtonCairns ATSIC 4 hours T. GrauRegional Council R. Hurley

M. LangtonSouth West 4 hours R. HurleyQueensland ATSIC M. LangtonRegional CouncilMt Isa and Gulf 5 hours R. HurleyATSIC Regional T. GrauCouncilAboriginal 2 hours Hon. A. WarnerCo-ordinating M. LangtonCouncil andFederation of LandCouncilsPeninsula ATSIC 4 hours N. PearsonRegional CouncilIn addition the Torres Strait ATSIC Regional Council met on a second occasion for a 1 day sittingand produced a detailed submission. The Department funded the attendance of the Chairman ofthe peak organisation representing Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland. (Megani MaluKes).Submissions were received from the following organisations and groups:

Mt Isa and Gulf Regional CouncilsCairns ATSIC Regional CouncilQueensland Aboriginal Federation of Land councilsTownsville Aboriginal and Islander Media Association Ltd.Cape York Land councilIsland Co-ordinating Council and Torres Strait ATSIC Regional CouncilKeppel Island PeopleYarrabah/Palm Island ATSIC Regional CouncilBrisbane ATSIC Regional Council (Indigenous Council of Deputies)Aboriginal Co-ordinating CouncilCherbourg Lands CouncilGurang Lands CouncilWuthathi Aboriginal CorporationMuralug Tribal Torres Strait Islander CorporationTorres United PartyAng Gnarra Aboriginal Corporation

Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided—


AYES, 45NOES, 31

Resolved in the affirmative.Committee

Hon. A. M. Warner (South Brisbane—Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs) in charge of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Before calling the clauses, I advise that, on page 42, a clerical errorappears. 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 contextof reserved lands that are adjacent to towns coming within the ambit of the shire council's or towncouncil's control. I ask the Minister: what will be the position in relation to rates? Are rates payable onthat land? What will be the position in relation to the approval of building permits, etc.? For theinformation of the Committee, could the Minister outline the position in relation to local authority ratesand 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 thisclause. However, I can inform the member that there is nothing in the Bill that either exempts or createsa situation in which Aboriginal land will be rateable. There is a fundamental difficulty in imposing rateson land that is the subject of inalienable title because there is no capacity for the council to resume theland 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


parkland being made into a title for claimable land. As members of the Opposition have stated quiteclearly in various speeches, we do not believe that one group should be set apart. Members of theNational Party believe that national parks belong to all people. Our belief is that the Minister's proposalis tokenism because it involves the transfer of national park and then the immediate reversion of title tothe Government at the rent of one peppercorn. Of course, this will depend on the tribunal and thegazetting of the national park. The Opposition deplores this measure as a reasonable method ofgranting land rights to Aboriginal people because the Minister has indicated that the Government couldgo further than that. The National Party's policy is quite clear. We do not support national parks beingconverted to Aboriginal land.

Ms WARNER: There is no need for a response to that comment. I am a little concerned that thehonourable member raised the issue in the wrong part of the legislation. However, the Government iscommitted to making sure that the Aboriginality of national parks, if that is the point the member wishedto raise specifically, is maintained through the purposes of this Bill and that national parks will becomeclaimable Aboriginal land.

Mr SLACK: I have another point to raise on this clause. Obviously, it includes the 1.16 per cent ofvacant Crown land that is claimable. At the second-reading stage, I asked the Minister whether that1.16 per cent of vacant Crown land was the only claimable land and she indicated that it was not. Fearhas been expressed to me that, if a lease of pastoral land, or any other land that is held under any typeof lease, expires within the 15-year period, it could be declared, through a process that the Governmentcould activate, vacant Crown land and be gazetted for claim by Aboriginal groups. That is anotherreason why the Opposition has sought to have this clause removed. It would remove the possibility ofthat happening.

Ms WARNER: At any given point in time or in history, it is virtually impossible to say, "This isvacant Crown land and everything else is not." From time to time, land tenures do change. However, Iwill 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 theCommittee divided—AYES, 44NOES, 31

Resolved in the affirmative.Clause 2.12, as read, agreed to.


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 andsets 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 thinkthat 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, againstthe 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 miningright on a block of land, will that person be excluded?

Ms WARNER: I refer the honourable member to subclause (2), which is headed "In thissection—", and which states—

" 'interest' means a legal or equitable interest in the land, but does not include a mininginterest."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 thatlease 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, againstthe 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 anyperson can have a right against the Crown to the grant of an interest in that land. As a lease expires orby some other mechanism land becomes Crown land, how can any person have a right against thatland? In addition to that, still in regard to subparagraph (i)—in my experience, one cannot put a caveaton such land. There was never any clear undertaking that another interest in the land will be granted atthe time that it becomes Crown land.

Ms WARNER: I think that the honourable member is just going around in circles. I am not entirelysure what the point is that he is trying to make. I think that the legislation is drafted in plain English. It isset 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 ortownship land is not available Crown land for the purposes of this legislation. This has been a matter ofsome concern to urban Aboriginal people insofar as it would appear to render claims to land in citiesand townships not possible. Will the Minister confirm that there are existing powers on the part of theDirector-General of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs to acquire land for the benefit ofAboriginal and Islander people; that is to say, that there are in existence powers whereby land may beacquired for the benefit of Aboriginal and Islander people, albeit not within the provisions of this Bill, norprovided for specifically by a statutory land acquisition fund?

Ms WARNER: I thank the honourable member for Yeronga for the question. I would like toreiterate that there is nothing in this Bill which precludes the right of the Director-General of FamilyServices and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs from acquiring


land on behalf of Aboriginal people. That is a right that the director, the chief executive of thatdepartment, has had over many years. That right is in no way impaired. I point out that there would alsohave to be a capacity to be able to acquire land in the cities in the Townsville area because there are alarge number of Aboriginal services which require that purchase of land, and that is in no way affectedby this legislation. However, what is affected by this legislation is the capacity to convert over toAboriginal title land in towns and cities. Under this legislation, it may be possible to put a claim on landthat 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 insubclause (2), which reads—

" 'interest' means a legal or equitable interest in the land, but does not include a mininginterest."My understanding is that a mining interest is one of the very few tenements that can be placed overland by way of just driving some pegs in the ground and lodging a claim. Going back to paragraph (h), itappears 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 amining tenement. The paragraph states that a person has a right against the Crown to the grant of aninterest 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 irrevocableguarantee 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 ofunderstanding.

Mr GILMORE: I agree with the Minister on paragraph (i), and I accept her explanation. I wouldappreciate an explanation of paragraph (h), because there is a serious problem in the drafting of thatclause. 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 landby getting a guarantee over Crown land that nobody else is able to obtain. I believe that needs to beexplained to this Parliament.

Ms WARNER: The issue that is addressed by this clause is that where someone is purchasing orin the process of purchasing Crown land, the area is still Crown land but it has been indicated that thereis an interest in that land, because there is a process which is proceeding which makes that landunavailable. However, that does not include the note in subclause (2). I am assured that there are legalsituations in which someone may have an interest that is going through a process, but the land is stilltechnically 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 indicatedthat he would like a block of land somewhere, he could in fact tie up the whole land system inQueensland. That is what the Minister is saying. This has obviously been drafted about 2 o'clock in themorning by somebody who has left town.


It really needs to be clarified. I feel desperately sorry for the Minister who has been placed in a difficultposition by the Premier. It is absolutely scandalous for him to do that and leave the Minister in thatposition.

Ms WARNER: I think the honourable member is really getting overly concerned about a verysmall point. I am assured that there are legal situations in which more than just a trivial interest hasbeen expressed, and I would also again inform the member that that land has to be gazetted before itbecomes 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 andbanks 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 andthat 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 offee simple areas and affects people who hold land in fee simple. I want to know whether or not the landthat is claimable and which presumably will go to Aboriginal people is then subject to the WaterResources Administration Act and the Land Act. I want to know whether or not Aboriginal people willhave 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 tointerfere 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 thatapply 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 tothose 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 theapplication 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 watersof the sea, freehold land, and in paragraph (c) it refers to "an associated reserve". I ask the Minister:associated with what?


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 timeof 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 whetherother Queenslanders will be able to take advantage of a similar system. Recently, I surveyed a smallblock of land about 100 yards wide and 500 yards long. That cost me over $1,000. I wonder whetherthis is a provision which will be available to one group of people but not to others. In addition, whathappens in regard to neighbours? Say, for instance, a deed of grant is taken off and the land issurveyed. 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 relationto the land."

In the Property Law Act there is currently no avenue by which covenants can be recorded on the titlerecords. That is the law at present. I see nothing in that subclause that will ensure that it is recorded. If itis not legal now, how will it be done? My last query is: what are the consequences if the conditions arenot 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 Ministeranswer those questions.

Ms WARNER: In response to the first question the honourable member raised in relationsubclause (2), I inform him that, if the land already has on it a deed, which is a deed of grant in trustwhich may be transferred over, there is no need for further surveying, because it is transferable landthat is being referred to, not any other area of land.

As to subclause (4), which relates to an Aboriginal understanding of the word "responsibilities"—thisrelates to the way in which Aboriginal people relate to their land and the customary responsibilities thatthey may have for the land and which they may wish to have included in the form of the title so that thetraditional basis upon which that land has been granted to them is absolutely clear and outlines to themand the community the responsibilities that they have for that land. There is no way under this Bill thatan enforcement provision can revoke the grant if those responsibilities are not fulfilled. They are simplya guide for Aboriginal people.


Mr HOBBS: They cannot receive the title without its being registered. Under the Property Law Actin Queensland, it is impossible to register a covenant on those titles. It cannot be done. I do not believethat 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 landthat is being claimed, and the survey is just described, and if I had some sort of conflict with that personabout the boundary line, how would I go in a court of law? How would the courts deal with that, if myland 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 alreadydefined.

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 withthis section.' "

The Opposition has made it quite clear that basically it does not support clause 3.02, under which theMinister appoints the trustees. In fact, the Aboriginal Coordinating Council has indicated that it does notsupport it either, because it removes the council's right to elect its community councils. Those councilsare now acting as trustees to the DOGIT lands. When that land is transferred and becomes claimableland, those community councils will no longer be trustees, and grantees will be appointed. They arealready elected people, and they are very confused. They are wondering what their position will be asfar as the administration of the areas of land that they control, and libraries, council chambers and landwithin 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 clausecontains a consultation provision. However, that consultation is based on trust. Eventually, the Ministercould appoint her own people. Obviously, people will lobby the Minister. All sorts of groups will lobby theMinister. 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 Ido not believe that this is the way to solve them. Irrespective of what the Opposition says, this clausewill become part of the Act. The Aboriginal Coordinating Council has discussed this matter with theMinister and with me. It objects to the fact that it might be denied the ability to appoint its people astrustees. The council accepts that, in the long term, the will of the Government will prevail. However, itforesees a problem, because when that land becomes transferable, it will be transferred to a set oftrustees or grantees. If it is claimed by a group of Aboriginal people or another clan group, and thetribunal upholds the claim or reallocates land within the area, there is the possibility that another set oftrustees will be appointed. The intention of the Opposition's amendment is to avoid a doubleappointment. The Opposition has indicated quite clearly that it does not agree with the Minister's takingover the role of the trustees and appointing trustees, as opposed to the elected trustees. The last resortof the Aboriginal Coordinating Council is: will the Minister accept this amendment? The council and theOpposition believe that the amendment is reasonable. It takes a link out of the chain and goes someway towards meeting the council's wishes. Even though it is not in favour of the entire clause, if theMinister is prepared to agree to this amendment, the Opposition will accept that. If not, it will divide theCommittee on this clause.


Ms WARNER: In respect of the clause—I do not have anything that is hugely problematic. I thinkthat 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 thatone of the major drawbacks of that form of land tenure for Aboriginal people was that it did notrecognise traditional rights on Aboriginal land and traditional ownership. The honourable member forFlinders very well knows that argument. Otherwise, he has never been listening to any of the groups towhom he has been talking. At my first Aboriginal Coordinating Council meeting, it was suggested to methat one thing wrong with DOGIT was that it did not recognise the Aboriginality of land and did notunderstand 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 lawof this land.

We know very well that that position does not apply in every Aboriginal community. It is notappropriate to apply it in every Aboriginal community, which is the reason for a level of discretion. Butwhilst there is a level of discretion under the legislation, there is also a level of compulsion upon theMinister to recognise the Aboriginal people particularly concerned with land. Obviously, that will be amediative process. I refer to recommendation No. 1—the principal recommendation—of the report ofthe Public Accounts Committee, which recommended that the system of Government that applies onAboriginal communities now is not recognised by Aboriginal people for a whole range of reasons. Thevery point that the honourable member says is attractive about it—which is the elected system—is thevery thing that those people say to any interested observer who cares to ask; that is, elections do notmean 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, inAboriginal 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 notbe immediately obvious, and it may very well be appropriate in the first instance to pass the title of thatland to the council in the interim. However, if anybody is dissatisfied with anything in clause 3.02 that isdone by the Minister, he has immediate recourse to the Land Tribunal, where he can have the wholequestion about who gets what bit of land adjudicated. The honourable member for Flinders was one ofthe most notorious Ministers for wandering around and irresponsibly giving bits of land to the wrongpeople.

Mr SLACK: On my understanding, what the Minister said in relation to anybody who isdissatisfied is not true. If they are dissatisfied, their only recourse is to the Minister. How does the LandTribunal act as an adjudicator on the appointment of trustees? For the Minister to say that those peopleare 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 theresidents of the community who vote in a referendum proposed by the Community Council. If sucha change is sought, the government should consult with the Community and ensure that the newtrustees are representative of all major traditional land holding groups in the area. The finalstructure of the trusteeship should be approved by the Community Council before the Ministerpresents it to the Governor-in-Council for certification."


The ACC—the Aboriginal Coordinating Council—is a well-recognised representative body ofAboriginal people. The letter continues—

"Even if there be a change to the trusteeship of DOGIT lands, the community residential andadministration area should remain vested in the Community Council. If the Government does notagree 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 Bill1991.

We believe the trustees of DOGIT lands should not be changed unless the change is soughtby 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 thatthe new trustees are representative of all major traditional land holding groups in the area. The finalstructure of the trusteeship should be approved by the Community Council before the Ministerpresents it to the Governor-in-Council for certification.

Even if there is a change to the trusteeship of DOGIT lands, the Community residential andadministration area should remain vested in the Community Council otherwise Community conflictwill 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 groupof people who have been the structure that has been recognised and supported by Aboriginal peoplefrom all of the communities within the community council that represents those areas of land that areclassified as transferable land. They see major problems in what the Minister proposes for theircommunities, where there is population. They see causes for considerable division. People will belobbying the Minister to try to sort out many of those problems. With what the Minister proposes in thelegislation, she does not realise what she is taking on. To say that the Aboriginal people do not supportelected positions is just so much hogwash.

Mr KATTER: We have gone easy on the Minister. We thought her intentions were genuine, but itmust be explained clearly to everyone in this Chamber that in 1984, when the member for Cunninghamand 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 in1984.

Mr KATTER: With all due respect to the Chair, in order to explain the change that is occurringhere, one must explain what the situation is at the present time and what it will be after the passing ofthis clause. The position that was created in this Chamber in April 1984, which we are now changingunder this legislation, was that ownership and control of the reserves lay in the hands of the localpeople. The Minister has said that traditional land rights should be recognised. Surely the people wholive at Kowanyama should be the ones who decide who gets what at Kowanyama. This Bill replaces theelected representatives. I wish to put on record that the honourable member for Cook is shaking hishead. He is disagreeing with the fact that the elected representatives—that is the shire councils electedby the people themselves—should have the


say, and that the say as to who gets what at Kowanyama on the peninsula should be vested in aMinister elected by a Government that is 2 000 kilometres away in Brisbane. I can understand aschoolteacher from Cairns shaking his head. He knows nothing. He has never lived with the Aboriginalpeople and does not understand them. He most certainly has no kinship with them. At this point oftime, ownership and control of that land was under the white consultants sitting in the lobby—and Ihope their names are taken down for posterity. They will remember the Minister and the Premier at thetime 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, thenthose people will have control of every one of the reserves in Queensland. I wish to let all thecommunities 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. Whatan insult to the people of Kowanyama, Pormpuraaw or any of the reserves on Cape York Peninsula. Asfor traditional land rights—they have traditional land rights at Palm Island and in my area aroundCloncurry and Mount Isa. What is the Minister going to do? Will she dispossess the entire population ofPalm Island? This could only happen as a result of the stupidity of white people who have never hadanything to do with people of Aboriginal descent in their entire lives. These are the people who blackpeople call the white "migolos", because they are sell-out merchants who have been the Minister'sconsultants. Only someone from that sort of background could present anything as stupid, demeaningand 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 theMinister may remove or suspend trustees appointed under subsection (1). The people of Aboriginaldescent in Brisbane expressed their opinion of this Bill out there in the street. In the last shire councilelections in these areas, 10 000 people voted. They belong to the ACC and the ICC and theOpposition has a letter from the ACC rejecting this Bill. This letter makes reference to the internationalcourts 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 thepeople had control of the islands. They decided who got what on the islands. They have now beenthrown 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 doesthe Government ever own Aboriginal land. At no point does the Minister ever get the land back. All theMinister is allowed to do under this clause is transfer the title from one group to another in consultationwith 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 thesubject 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 theyrefuse to listen, but the fact of the matter is that, in spite of the document put around the gallery by themember for Flinders in an attempt to mislead people even


more, it is not true that the land returns to the Government. It is false. The honourable member shouldread the Bill. The land never goes back to the Government. All the Minister can do under this clause issimply transfer the trust deed from one group to another, and it has a duty under this Bill to do that inconsultation with the Aboriginal people. Obviously, the people on the elected council in the area will beconsulted on this matter.

I return to the question asked by the member for Burnett, who has been patiently waiting for ananswer as to how the tribunal gets in on the act if there are obvious interim arrangements between landtrustees transferring from the DOGIT system and the reserve system over to the new system. Ifdisputes arise out of those transfers—and there may very well be disputes because it is not possible topredict every type of claim that might be made—those disputes can be adjudicated between oneAboriginal group as against another at the Land Tribunal. Any decision made in accordance with clause3.02 will not be the end of the story, because additional claims may be lodged with the land claimstribunal to rectify any mistakes that may have been made. I can assure the honourable member andthe ACC that the intent of the amendment is not inconsistent with the clauses contained in the Bill; noris it inconsistent with the purposes behind the implementation of the legislation. It may very well be thatthe spirit of the clause will be generated throughout the legislation but, as I say, it would be a redundantstep to change the clause. There is no reason to go to that length simply to satisfy the raving lunacy ofthe member for Flinders.

Mr GILMORE: I suggest that this legislation may contain a drafting error, because two differenttypes of land have been discussed. We are talking about the existing deeds of grant in trust areas thathave elected councils. As I mentioned during the second-reading stage, other areas of land will begranted under this legislation from time to time, but they will not have elected local governmentcouncils. It may well have been the intent of the draftsman to refer to trustees for areas of land that arenot controlled by elected councils, and accept the elected councils for the areas of land under deeds ofgrant in trust. I simply cannot accept the Minister's taking such a patronising view of Aboriginal affairswhereby she insists on the appointment and removal of trustees. The Minister should realise that it ispossible she has made a complete mess of the drafting of this legislation because she has simplyforgotten that there are two sets of circumstances. It would be possible to accept the elected councils indeeds of grant in trust areas as trustees for their own land.

Mr KATTER: I have explained in some considerable detail that ordinary shire council electionsare held in Aboriginal communities at the same time as they are held in every other area inQueensland. I think that members of the opposition parties and even members of the Governmentappreciate 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 whoshould own the land. Should the Government continue to own it and should it decide who should beappointed as trustees? The Minister has something in common with the late Director of the Departmentof Aboriginal Affairs because her proposal is identical in every way to the proposal made to me by MrPat Killoran, who suggested that the Government should appoint the trustees in whom ownership ofthe land was vested. I thought that was the most patronising suggestion I had ever heard. When I wasMinister, I thought that that suggestion would be both provocative and insulting to every single personof Aboriginal descent in this State.

The previous National Party Government had a clear choice. It could decide to appoint the trusteesor 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 peoplevoted in these areas during the last local government elections and they chose approximately 60people to represent them. Those people made the decision. I venture to suggest that if the idea wassuggested to


every single community in Queensland, every single one of them would vote overwhelmingly—to theextent 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 honourablemember should answer me by way of interjection. Who does he think the people of Woorabinda wouldprefer to have? The Committee is being greeted by deafening silence because, if the honourablemember suggested that the Minister should make the decision, he would make a gigantic fool ofhimself and would put himself in the same class as the lady who will go down in history as the worstAboriginal and Islander Affairs Minister in the history of this State. I have already been told on thetelephone 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 theMinister. I realise that Labor members think they are God's gift to creation, but I ask them to imaginethat members of the Opposition form the Government after the next election or the election after thatone. I do not think that Labor members believe they will be in government for eternity, but perhaps theydo. Do they seriously think that the people of Doomadgee or Woorabinda would prefer to have aGovernment located in Brisbane appointing the owners of their land instead electing the trustees oftheir land themselves? Does anyone seriously suggest that such a proposition would be considered bythe people who live in these communities? I repeat that 10 000 of these people voted in the localgovernment elections. Their thoughts and feelings have not even been referred to. The consultantshave made the decisions. Again, I emphasise that 10 000 people voted to elect two bodies and theirrespective shire councils. They have unanimously condemned the decision that is being givenlegislative 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 forYeronga, Mr Foley, could seriously claim that the Government of Queensland should make the decisionabout what should happen at Kowanyama. He must stand condemned in the eyes of every fair-mindedQueenslander.Members of the Labor Party will stand condemned by not only the people ofQueensland today but by future generations, if they happen to be re-elected to office. I produce theACC 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 absolutelyappalled 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 wecannot 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.


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 Oppositionmembers understand that, because a person is elected in a community, that does not necessarilymean that he is the legitimate, traditional owner of the land of that community. That is very importantand that is what this clause is about. The member for Flinders seems to be arguing that, because aperson is elected to a particular DOGIT council, that person should have the right to the title to thatland. The fact of the matter is, as this clause points out, that that is not necessarily appropriate in everycase.

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 shouldgive 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 whatthis is about. If the honourable member was fair dinkum and understood it—he should understandit—he would realise that people who are elected in certain DOGIT areas may not necessarily be thetraditional 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 theviews 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 concernedwith 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 waythat 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 DOGITareas. 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 insome cases, which is what the subclause allows for, the people who are elected in the local councilelections may not necessarily be the traditional owners of that land. Are Opposition members trying to


say that we should lock those people out? This is a very serious point. What honourable members areproposing is wrong. This clause is very important. If honourable members understand what the Bill isabout, they will realise that this clause is the most serious clause in the Bill. It deserves seriousconsideration, not juvenile point-scoring.

Mr SLACK: I appreciate the impassioned pleas of the member for Caboolture. However, a coupleof issues are involved. We may have an elected council—I understand what the Minister is saying—butthen we may have a situation in which the tribunal comes along and makes an allocation to a traditionalowner of land that may be within the town that the council controls. We get down to the power that theactual trustees have. The people are concerned that there are conflicting powers. I take the point thatthose people may not be elected people. For argument's sake, what happens if a claim is made onland on which a library has been built? What happens if the traditional owners are found not to residewithin 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 ofthe trustees? The Minister is going to say who are the owners of the land. The tribunal is not theadjudicator in regard to who is appointed as a trustee. The tribunal is the adjudicator in regard to theactual ownership of the land, not who the Minister appoints as trustees. The Minister appoints thetrustees from whoever she decides are the owners of the land. The Minister appoints those trusteeswithin areas that are not the outside areas—say, in the larger communities—but the areas that arecontrolled within the town area. That is where the concern really lies. I am not misunderstanding the Billor trying to be emotional about it, I am just trying to be objective. The purpose of moving theamendment to insert a new clause 6 was simply to overcome a problem that was foreseen. TheAboriginal people do not see that there is a major conflict with the rest of it, which the Minister says isthe case. That is why the Opposition cannot understand why the Minister will not accept theamendment.

Ms WARNER: A lot of the issues that the member for Burnett raises are quite valid. I do notbelieve that the deed of grant in trust or, indeed, the community services legislation ever really resolvedquestions of land-ownership, religious responsibilities, customary law or even local government issueson Aboriginal communities. In many ways, that is why the Public Accounts Committee had to carry outan investigation. That is why there has been a lot of disputation and a lack of resolution, which themember for Roma has obviously never even noticed because he has paid so little attention toAboriginal 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 quitevalid. However, this Bill does not seek to establish every single aspect of Aboriginal life, as have someother Acts in Queensland's history. This Bill simply seeks to allocate land to Aboriginal people. Otherissues related to how those communities operate or how they have relationships with one another arenot addressed by this legislation. Those issues will be addressed further by the community servicesreview committee, which is operating to update and to bring some improvement to the communityservices legislation in respect of DOGIT. In other areas—in the reserve lands—a lot of these issues willhave to be renegotiated within the communities themselves. People do not have to live by a code ofconduct set down by Parliament; they really don't. All that the Government has to do is to allocate landto people—to the right people. The Government does not have to say how everything else shouldoperate 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


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 trusteeswill decide land-ownership. These people are still going to have a local authority, so they will not bedisfranchised with regard to having elected people look after their community interests in terms of theaspirations 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 thosematters. Considerable discussions have been held on Aboriginal communities over a long period aboutthe very issue of the relationship between the total system that was set up under the communityservices legislation, and how wrong that was, and the attempt to actually delineate between the variousfunctions of the council. Quite frankly, one of the least fundamental functions that was ever explainedto me was the land-holding function. In fact, the ACC itself, in discussions over a period, has said thatone of the things that was wrong with the deed of grant in trust legislation was its lack of recognition oftraditional Aboriginal ownership. That has been said because these people are part of thosecommunities in which the social relations are not smooth and have not actually taken very well to theimposition 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 controlsare 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 thatin which an individual, a Queenslander with individual rights, is being badly mistreated by some othergroup within that DOGIT area. Is the Minister going to say that the laws of Queensland are not going toapply, that those people are not going to have access to natural justice in Queensland, and that adispute has to be settled in the local area? Is the Minister going to leave those people to settle itthemselves? Are they going to have the protection of the laws of Queensland with regard to access tothe 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. Hesaid that just because they are the elected representatives, that does not mean that they should haveany say over the land. The people of these areas could say, "Just because you are the electedrepresentatives of Queensland, you should not necessarily have any say over their land." There isconsiderable naivete on the part of some of members.

The Government does not seem to understand—and it causes me great pain to say this—thatmost of the black people in Queensland were rounded up and herded into different areas at thediscretion of the Director of the Department of Native Affairs. In fact, people were brought down fromthe peninsula to the southern part of the State. Is the Minister seriously claiming that all of the peoplepresently at Cherbourg should be thrown out? Bernie Buttons would claim vociferously that he shouldown all of Cherbourg. What the Minister has said is that the traditional owners should take over thereserve. The Minister has made the statement in this Chamber that the traditional owners shouldresume their traditional ownership. Does the Minister seriously believe that five people on Cherbourgshould displace the other 2 000?

The Minister said that I used only two examples. I can take up the time of the Committee andquote as examples all 17 of the community areas in Queensland. The definitive thing that is happeninghere is that yesterday the black people had control of their areas. Each of the reserve areas, as theywere once called—the community areas as they are now called—was controlled by the people wholived in those areas. If the Government is saying that they should be thrown out and another group ofpeople, 95


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 hereis that the socialists are simply taking back control of the land that our Government gave to the localpeople to own and control. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham, I am proudto say, risked their political lives to deliver ownership to those people. Not one single person on theother side of the Chamber was willing to risk his political life to leave that ownership with the people. SoI 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 Committeedivided—AYES, 30NOES, 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 oftheir 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 thecommunity may become aware of what the agreed interest might be. After that 28-day period, itbecomes a binding agreement and subclause (6) therefore applies. It was felt that the amendment wasnecessary to ensure that people did not enter into an agreement without telling anybody else about itand then being forced, by subclause (6), to keep to it.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 3.11, as ramended, agreed to.


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 inperpetuity that will be granted for cultural and economic purposes. I want to talk about those. I referalso to the Minister's earlier reply when I raised the matter of inalienable freehold title not needing to besurveyed. The Minister's answer was that the DOGIT lands that presently exist are already surveyed, sotherefore they will not need to be surveyed again. I accepted that response. However, this clauserelates to leases that can be granted anywhere throughout Queensland. The Minister said that theseleases need not be surveyed. There is not a lot of consistency between the various clauses. I would likethe Minister to answer that.

Ms WARNER: I do not think that the honourable member ever came to grips with the previousclause that was debated. I point out that the conditions that apply under this clause are quite consistentand quite legally appropriate. There does not appear to be a legal necessity for going through thedetailed procedure that the member opposite suggests.

Mr HOBBS: The Bill provides for the creation of a lease of the type that any Queenslander canenter 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 shewas caught out on the first clause that was debated fully. I cannot see how she will be able to getaround 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 notneed to be independently surveyed. I believe that the honourable member opposite is making theissue unnecessarily complicated. It appears as though he is trying to make a major issue out of thismatter.

Mr KATTER: I suppose one can thank the Minister for some small mercies that at least theprivate holdings were left intact. The thrust toward private ownership that was made in 1984 resulted ina very dramatic change in the economic performance of these areas. Until the changes of 1984, mostof the commercial operations were run by white people and administered from Brisbane. After thechanges, most of the commercial operations shifted over to private ownership—or we desperately triedto 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 weremust be stated once again to the Committee. The community stores went from a loss of half a milliondollars 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 whetherthere will be no privately owned land, only collectively owned land. The statistics indicate that we shouldbe walking down the pathway of privately owned land. The Queensland legislation was dramaticallysuccessful because, unlike the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria or NewSouth Wales, we introduced a concept of private ownership. A lot of the anthropologists tell me that wereintroduced the concept of private ownership because that was how it was in the days prior toEuropean settlement. I crave your indulgence, Mr Chairman, to state how successful thatexperiment—if one likes to use that word—was. The cattle turn-over leapt from 900 to 5 800 a year; thecrayfish industry turn-over leapt from 0.3 million to 7 million a year; and the fishing turn-over at MassigIsland went from 14 000 to 292 000.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! This really has nothing to do with the clause.


Mr KATTER: I wish to address the premise that is being put forward. If we are to survey thoseareas, we are talking about a prohibitively expensive exercise. Obviously, it will be impossible tosubdivide 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 nosurveying demands placed upon it. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of leases changedhands without that land being surveyed. There is no necessity for formal surveys within what was onceupon a time known as the old reserve land areas. I venture to submit that if that imposition is put uponthe land, no land will be able to move out to private ownership. I regret to say that, in my opinion, theLands Department constantly played that sort of game to prevent land going out to private ownership inthose 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 oftheir 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 adifferent place in the legislation.

Mr BREDHAUER: My comment does not relate to the amendment. But I ask the Minister: giventhat the Bill does not provide for statutory land councils, what provisions can the Government make toprovide resources to Aboriginal groups to make and support claims—and I include technical support—tonegotiate with people such as mining companies and those who are interested in other ventures onAboriginal lands?

Ms WARNER: Although the legislation does not provide for land management bodies such asland councils, it may very well be that there will be dealings on land in a particular region where it maybe necessary for Aboriginal people from different parts of that land to get together for the purposes ofdealing with a possible resort, a mining company or some other development on the land that will havean effect on the region rather than just on the local area. In a number of communities, prospects ofsuch developments are occurring. If those communities are seeking to form a land council or similarbody to deal with those management issues, this Government will consider providing funding for themto be able to offer the correct advice to the owners and to ensure that Aboriginal interests are protectedand promoted.

Mr KATTER: Let me be kind to the Minister and say that she did not write this Bill. Subclause5.13 (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, andwalks all over the top of the sensitivity of the people with whom we are dealing. This clause replaces asection of the previous Act that put the transfer of land into the hands of a tribunal consisting of astipendiary 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 thepeace from the local community—the tribal elders, if one likes. Those people previously had that rightand power. Once again, those powers are being taken away from the local community and vested atthe discretion of a political appointment—the Minister. It is absolutely unbelievable; it would not beacceptable in any other place in society. To impose it


upon those people is to give them such a low status compared with the rest of society that it must beinsulting and offensive to them. I recommend to the Minister that whoever drafted the Bill be sackedand replaced by a person with brains, integrity and some sort of sensitivity and feeling for the peoplewith whom they deal.

I am pleased to see that the clause introduces the ability to mortgage. The other point that I wishto 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 ourselvesin the same position as South Africa. How do people prove their racial inheritance? I venture to suggestthat that is enormously difficult for large numbers of people in society, whether they be of Aboriginal orany other descent. So, the National Party tried desperately to avoid that. The criterion that we used wascommunity residency. We believe that, whatever people's racial origins, if they belong to and areaccepted by their local community as locals, they should have the same rights, powers and privilegesas 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 somethinginsubstantial here, I point out that very large segments of all of the communities in the peninsula arepopulated by people of Torres Strait Islander descent. This Bill opens enormous avenues andopportunities for racial conflict. It will be argued from now on that some Aborigines are Europeans andnot Aborigines. That is what the Minister has done. She has drawn up the Bill along racial lines. There isno necessity to do that. If the Minister had at least the common decency to confer with the AboriginalCoordinating Council, that council would have made to the Minister the same recommendations that itmade to the National Party, that is, that it could determine who is a community resident and that thatbe the criterion. Every fair-minded person in this place would agree that that is the sort of criterion thatshould be in the Bill.

I cannot remember dealing with one person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent in theState of Queensland who did not agree that the qualification should be community residency ratherthan 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 thoseareas by setting a criterion that, quite frankly, cannot be met.

Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I believe that the honourable member for Flinders is wanderingconsiderably 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 beappropriate that, if she indicates that the member for Flinders is way off the clause, I should ask him toreturn 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 isabsolutely appalling that the word "Aborigine" was put in the Bill. That shows a complete ignorance ofthe position that exists in the community. People who might be of 95 per cent European descent willsuddenly be discriminated against. We will have enormous problems with, among others, people whoare of part Torres Strait Islander descent. Many people of Maori descent now live in those areas. It islamentable that that sort of criterion was introduced when there was no necessity for its introduction. Forthe 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. Ihope that that person has very great wisdom, because he or she will make every single determination.The local people are


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 acceptedby the Government, as urged in the submissions to the Government from Father Frank Brennan. Hiscontribution should be acknowledged in that respect.

The second point that I wish to make briefly is this: during the course of this debate, thehonourable member for Flinders repeatedly mounted an attack upon draftspersons who are not privy tothis debate. That is unfortunate. It is open to him to argue as forcefully as he wishes against thewording, but to mount an attack on Parliamentary Counsel and upon the distinguished legalpractitioners 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 thisclause. 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 besome 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 inmy remarks clause 5.21, because reference is made in that clause to the National Parks and WildlifeAct. I take it that, when reference is made to the Minister in the legislation, that is the Minister forEnvironment and that the director referred to in the legislation is the Director of the National Parks andWildlife 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 inclause 5.20 (2) (b), where it states "from time to time as requested by the Minister", that is a referenceto the Minister for Environment, and not the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs. 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 asthough 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 alsostates that it is subject to this legislation. I assume that it is primarily subject to the provisions of thelegislation 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.


Ms WARNER: The honourable member was correct when he made his earlier points in relation tothe 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 asthough it had all remained Crown land."

But under the first clause the national park land is subject to this Bill. There is an interrelationshipbetween the two pieces of legislation in different respects, but a number of the features of the NationalParks 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, butsubject to this section, section 5.21 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975, act in a way thatis consistent with any Aboriginal tradition . . ."

The two Acts become interdependent upon each other and the honourable member would probably beaware that the National Parks and Wildlife Act will have to be amended to be consistent with thislegislation.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!I will allow the honourable member for Burnett to raise points in clause5.21.

Mr SLACK: I refer to the amendment that the Minister has just made. There is to be a board ofmanagement for the national park, the composition of which the Minister must approve in writing. TheAboriginal people particularly concerned with national park land are to be represented on the board ofmanagement. I take it that that board of management will be at a local level. The management plan isbrought down from the national parks director without any input from the board of management. Theboard will be made up of people from the area, and I understand from what the Minister said previouslythat those people will include not only Aboriginal people, but also other people around that nationalpark. Their role will not be a finite one. It will be a role to make recommendations for the managementof the national park. It will not actually override the powers provided under the National Parks andWildlife Act as such or the duties and responsibilities of the director and officers of the National Parksand Wildlife Service.

Mr ELLIOTT: In relation to clauses 5.20 and 5.21—I ask the Minister to give us an examplebased on Fraser Island and the proposal that Tony Fitzgerald has made in his report. Basically, heindicates that, to begin with, it will be a regional park on the World Heritage List. The Minister forEnvironment will be the responsible Minister and the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Servicewill have responsibility for enforcing the management plan not only for the national park itself, but alsofor the whole region both inside and outside the national park. No-one will be able to do anything—putup a proposal for a resort development or anything of that kind—that is not in keeping with the idealsand 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 WildlifeService and will be a representative body, as indicated by our shadow spokesman. Under thatcommittee again will be a committee of experts who will advise the representative committee. How willall 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 anothercommittee 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 thedevelopment of that discussion between the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and theAboriginal people concerned with the particular area. One cannot say exactly who will be representedon which board, because there will be different local circumstances in different areas. Quite frankly, I donot know which committee the honourable member is talking about, and I ask him: does it really matterat this time of night, when he has simply invented it?


Mr ELLIOTT: No, I have not invented it. It is in Tony Fitzgerald's report on Fraser Island. TheMinister is confusing the two issues.

Ms WARNER: The Government has not adopted those recommendations at this stage. Theparts of that report that refer to the Aboriginal ownership of national parks are contained in thislegislation. This is a proposal supported by Tony Fitzgerald, but he does not go into details because hewas 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 thatthe people who advised the Minister had drafted a Bill that is insensitive, stupid, arrogant andpaternalistic. An honourable member opposite said that that was incorrect, so I apologise to the peopleconcerned. If they did not do it, I must assume that the Minister did it, so I direct my remarks about theBill being insensitive, stupid, arrogant and paternalistic at her. I thank the honourable member for hisadvice, because I thought some outsiders had drafted the legislation. Obviously, however, members ofthe 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, whichis obviously what is being done under this clause. By the same token, to say that GRMPA should havecontrol 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 notmany 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 thosepeople should be given access to those areas. A similar position exists at Wujal Wujal. A national parkbegins right on the very boundary of that community. Traditionally, those people and their fathersbefore them have gone into those areas. To punish them for going into those areas to do a bit ofshooting or fishing is a most unfair act. While I certainly do not agree with the wider implications of theBill, 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 reallyhad very much relevance to this clause. However, I draw your attention to changes in the numbering ofthe 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 notnecessarily mean that a particular block of land will be transferred in that way, but it will be possible forany national park under the acquisition program to be made the subject of a claim under this Bill; thatis, any national park area in the 4 per cent of land that will be designated as national park land by theend of the three-year period.

Mr Ardill: If they can establish a claim.


Mr HOBBS: Yes. If those people can establish a claim, they will be able to have that land. I wishto point out some of the proposed parks that will be able to be claimed. I have a map that could bedescribed as a hit-list. It shows 14 areas between Mitchell and the south-west corner, which is a verysmall part of the State. To give some indication of what will happen, I cite the example of a youngcouple 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 tothis 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 outof town on a bitumen road, and are very happy to be there. It was only a matter of a couple of weeksago that they arrived home and found a letter on their doorstep. The letter stated that their land wouldbe taken as part of a national park. The young woman involved would be in her mid-thirties. Every timesomeone 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 whoraises 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 theclause.

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 ofthe 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


over that area? If work was to be carried out in that national park, who would have authority for thatwork?

Ms WARNER: The question is simply not relevant to anything, because it does not matterwhether it is under World Heritage listing or not. It is a matter of supreme irrelevance to the question ofwhether Aboriginal people can claim land in national parks. The question of World Heritage listing maybe relevant to other things, but not to this.

Mr KATTER: Although the reference made by the member for Warrego might have beenindirect, what we are arguing is that we have a Government in Queensland that is taking land off privateowners 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 mustbe 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 itspreparation, and that is of vital importance if Aboriginal people are to have a truly effective voice inplanning the scheme of arrangement which is to obtain in respect of national parks over which a claimhas been granted, otherwise they would merely be in a position in which they could implement a planarrived at without any input from them. The Minister is to be congratulated for putting this amendmentbefore the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.Ms WARNER: I move the following further amendments—


and insert—'(5)' ";











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 centof the State will be owned by the Government. With the area of national park to be doubled, that isanother 2 per cent, which brings the ownership by the State Government of land to 6 per cent of theState.

Ms WARNER: Mr Chairman, I protest. This has nothing to do with the numerical orderingcontained 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 thatthe 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—




and insert—'(10).' "

Amendments agreed to.


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 togive or return to the Aboriginal communities money that has come in from royalties from the land. Iwould like the Minister to explain, if she can, just how that is going to operate. The Minister says thatthat will be announced shortly, but is she going to acknowledge that all communities should share inthat benefit? Where the mineral is discovered on one particular community, is the royalty going to beshared by all the communities, or will most of the benefits go back to the community where the royaltyhas come from? As I explained very carefully in my contribution during the second-reading debate, oneof the reasons why the National Party was against the provision of mining royalties to the people on theland was the inequality that could develop from that provision, not only the inequality between thosepeople 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 miningrights, say, if minerals have been discovered, and there are royalties coming back there, and the othercommunity 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 Aboriginalpeople. 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 tomining on their land because they will get a direct benefit from it. However, a proportion of thoseroyalties will be made available for the benefit of Aboriginal people throughout the State, which is alsofair and reasonable. There is no reason to confine those benefits to one particular section of Aboriginalpeople.

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. Weaccept 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."


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 theGovernor in Council and that the allocation of particular people to determine particular claims would bemade 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 anumber of persons appointed by the Governor in Council, but she intends to increase that tribunal forseparate claims.

Ms WARNER: No. I think the way it will work is that the chairperson will most likely be a full-timeappointee, and there may be others, but there may very well be a panel of people drawn on from timeto time when there is a claim, and a person will sit and adjudicate on that claim, rather than there beingfull-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 realisticand 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 atthe tribunal advisers upon whom the chairman could call for assistance. There is either a tribunal orthere is not. The Minister is appointing the tribunal. I would understand that if some outside advice wasneeded, 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. Icannot 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 appointedby 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


(c) they have subsequently given the Aboriginal people notice of not less than one month oftheir 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 intentionsto 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 hasbeen included. We are dealing with an Act, which is a legal document. We are concerned about thePreamble, particularly paragraph (8), which states—

"The Parliament is satisfied that Aboriginal interests and responsibilities in relation to land havenot been adequately and appropriately recognised by the law and this has contributed to a generalfailure 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 thisParliament. I know the Minister has said that if there is any ambiguity in the Bill, reference can be madeback to the Preamble, but the fact remains that those terms are creating a precedent that can be usedin 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 measuresenacted by this Act, for the adequate and appropriate recognition of the interests andresponsibilities 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 Europeansettlement, land in what is now the State of Queensland had been occupied, used and enjoyed sincetime immemorial by Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. I also recognise thatsome Aboriginal people have maintained their ancestors' traditional affiliation with particular areas ofland; that some Aboriginal people have a historical association with particular areas of land; and thatsome Aboriginal people have a particular requirement for land.

The Opposition has reservations about the legal implications of paragraph (8). In the Minister'sreply at the second-reading stage, she referred to my being racist and my having made a statementabout Aboriginal people being in a cultural void. I stand by that statement. I was referring particularly tothe younger generation who no longer have the links with the older traditions, or who have not fittedinto the communities in general. That is not casting any slur on the Aboriginal people. That was not theintention of the statement. As I see it, it is merely stating a fact. That is not denying that Aboriginalpeople have a heritage and culture of which they are very proud. In the old cultures, they had verystrong 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 workedwith them. I have very good friends who are Aboriginal. Not for one minute would I try to denigrate theirculture or the strength of that culture. By the same token, we must be realistic and accept that, when Isaid that some Aboriginal people are in a cultural void, it was not meant in a denigrating way. None ofus denies that.


None of us denies the principles of which the Minister speaks in this legislation—at least, not all ofthem. However, we in the Opposition are worried about the legal implications and the necessity forthese provisions to be in the legislation. We recognise that there were problems in the development ofAustralia, and in my speech during the second-reading debate I referred to them. I spoke aboutmatters that cannot be redressed. I said also that this generation does not have to take the blame orbe guilty for those things about which people may object and about which Aboriginal people may feelhurt. The Opposition does not support the Preamble. Although I do not intend to divide the Committeeon 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 ofthe Preamble. One important reason for having the Preamble is to correct an error, a serious legal errorwhich has poisoned the reasoning of the courts for over a century. That error was made by the PrivyCouncil in the case of Cooper v. Stewart, to which I referred earlier. That error is largely cured by theprovisions of the Preamble insofar as it makes it plain that before European settlement, land in thisState of Queensland was occupied, used and enjoyed since time immemorial by Aboriginal people inaccordance with Aboriginal tradition. That lays some historical framework against a background wherethe legal doctrine had been the doctrine of terra nullius, that is to say, land that was practicallyuninhabited 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 agood root of title. Indeed, that was contrasted with conquest. As a result, Australia fell into a legal voidin which there was no recognition—at least no express recognition—given by the Privy Council to thegreat tradition of the Aboriginal and Islander laws. This Preamble corrects that profound error. It alsodeals with the misunderstanding that is commonly advanced as to the confusion between issues ofland rights and issues of apartheid that were described by the honourable member for Carnarvon in thecourse of his contribution earlier tonight. Paragraph (9) of the Preamble makes it plain that theParliament is satisfied that special measures need to be taken for the purpose of securing adequateadvancement of the interests and responsibilities of Aboriginal people in Queensland and to rectify theconsequences of past injustices. Simply put, it means a recognition that what this is about is land rightsand not apartheid. The High Court of Australia in Gerhardy v. Brown, a leading decision in 1985delivered through Justice Brennan, expressed it this way: the difference between land rights andapartheid 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 ofthe Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill earlier this week, this Preamble is placed in a position in whichfuture interpretations of the Act can be ascertained from this Preamble. The member for Yeronga hasmade it quite clear that this Preamble is about changing the tenure system in Queensland. It exposessome major complications that should be dealt with by a different Bill and a totally different aspect. Theprovisions in the Preamble are not dissimilar to the submissions made by the Department of Aboriginaland Islander Affairs to the Fitzgerald inquiry into Fraser Island, which asked for pre-existing title. This iswhat the Preamble can be interpreted as meaning. In common with the shadow Minister, the memberfor Burnett, I do not want to be seen as one who wants to segregate the races. I have a lot of respectfor the majority of all people in Queensland, including Aboriginal people. I have some very good friendswho are Aboriginals. I work side by side with them.

We must consider seriously what is happening here. The member for Yeronga stated that thePreamble is correcting an error. It is really a matter of full debate as to whether or not it is correcting anerror. If the honourable member wants to change the land tenure system entirely across-the-board, theissue should be debated in a forum in which it can be discussed fully, and not snuck in by the backdoor.

Mr Bredhauer: We stuck it right up front.


Mr HOBBS: There is no doubt that the Government certainly has done that. This certainly ties invery well with the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act.

It has been stated that some Aboriginal people have a requirement for land to ensure theireconomic and cultural viability. God damn it! Do whites not have that same right? Two wrongs do notmake a right. The Government is posturing, saying that this is great and that it gives one a nice, warminner glow. That is all very well, but at the end of the day we do not want to dispossess everybody, orthey 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, thatcould eventually affect the mainland. At the end of the day, if an Aboriginal person were able to provethat his family lived in the Parliament House area, the Botanic Gardens or King George Square, it wouldnot be up to this Parliament or the Premier of the day—whichever party might be in power—to denythat person that land. I ask honourable members to think about the chaos that would be associatedwith that. We must consider this issue seriously. It is possible that the end result would be that a treatywould 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 athreat 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 nochange to the legal status of preambles.

Mr SLACK: I appreciate the advice given to the Parliament by the learned gentleman fromYeronga. 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 NorthernTerritory and which the Opposition rejects emphatically. If the Government is going to alter the basisupon which land can be claimed on the premise that what happened in the Privy Council years ago wasincorrect, the actions of this Parliament could impact upon court decisions from now on. That could alterthe whole basis upon which land could be claimed by the Aboriginal people. It would be a worry if nocheck 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.


Third ReadingHon. 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, 44NOES, 30

Resolved in the affirmative. ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY; PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Sessional OrderHon. 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. onFriday, 31 May 1991, on which day Government business shall take precedence of all otherbusiness."Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 1.58 a.m. (Friday).

hansard 30 may 1991 - queensland parliament...legislative assembly 8144 30 may 1991 note: there...

Documents