Posts

Concerns Mount Over Increasing Aboriginal Land Claims

,

My office receives many calls from Australians worried about increasing Aboriginal land claims, especially under the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act 1991. Native Title Claims require Tribunal approval and come in two forms: Non-exclusive Title – allows cultural activities and access but doesn’t permit exclusion or sale and Exclusive Title – allows exclusion and some leasing but not sale. There must be community consultation.

The Queensland Aboriginal Land Act 1991 enables conversion of Crown land or non-exclusive native title land into inalienable freehold land for Aboriginal corporations, bypassing Native Title Act requirements. This method is affecting 15 Queensland townships and is being conducted secretly. There is no requirement for formal community consultation. This practice needs to stop as it unfairly benefits claimants based on race.

Transcript | Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Is your Labor government supporting the Queensland state Labor government to secretly give away freehold land to Aboriginal corporations, with little or no community consultation beforehand, under the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act?

Senator MCCARTHY: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. The answer is no. There are no secret deals going on; there’s no secretiveness in any of this. This is obviously a decision of the Queensland government in terms of what is going on in Queensland in regard to land. I’d just like to remind the Senate that native title recognises that First Nations people have traditional rights and interests to land and waters. We’ve had native title legislation in Australia for 30 years, and it continues to work to create jobs and improve lives.

Of course, there’s always room to improve, Senator Roberts. In June, we announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission is undertaking an inquiry into the future acts regime in the Native Title Act 1993. The review will investigate any inequality or unfairness or weaknesses in the regime, which governs how development projects can occur on land subject to native title.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Do you support the secret attack on 15 Queensland towns currently under attack in this way, including Augathella, Boonooroo, Croydon, Duchess, Eurong, Happy Valley, Laura, Maryborough, Mount Isa, Rainbow Beach, River Heads, Roma, Thargomindah, Theodore and Toobeah?

Senator MCCARTHY: Senator Roberts, I responded in my first answer in regard to the beginning of your question, but I will remind you and One Nation of this, because I have looked at the press releases that you’ve put out. In fact, regarding Senator Hanson’s press release ‘Toobeah community still ignored while arrogant Indigenous corporation plans takeover’, I note that One Nation put in there: One Nation is the only party contesting the state election with a policy that Queensland belongs to all Queenslanders. Let me remind you, One Nation: the Yuggera people are Queenslanders; the Kalkadoon people are Queenslanders; the Yidinji people are Queenslanders; the Gunggari people are Queenslanders. So, while you might want to electioneer for the Queensland election, can I just point out that there is no secrecy here and you degrade this Senate by running down Aboriginal people.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Are you concerned that the city of Mt Isa, capital of north-west Queensland, with all its mineral wealth, is subject to Aboriginal corporation claims based on race and greed and
made with no real consultation, when these resources should be available for all Australians?

Senator MCCARTHY: Come on, Senator Roberts. You can do much better than that. Let’s list the debate here. Let’s not isolate any community based on what you’ve just said. I think it’s disgraceful to actually allege that First Nations people are not a part of this country and don’t deserve to be involved in the economic benefits to this country—

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: President, it’s a matter of imputation. We do not allege that the Aboriginal people are not part of this country. I ask—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s a debating point. Minister McCarthy, please continue.

Senator MCCARTHY: I would say that, in terms of the people of Mt Isa, I would encourage the First Nations people there—the Kalkadoon people—and all people who live in Mt Isa to work together for the benefit of that community.

Transcript | Take Note

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to native title. 

My office has received many calls from Australians concerned about Aboriginal land claims becoming more numerous and related to widespread fear in the community. Some concerns relate to the more frequently occurring native title claims. Recently, I’ve become more aware of claims based on the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991. 

For native title claims to take effect, a tribunal needs to determine and formally finalise them. A determined native title may be in two forms. Non-exclusive title is the most common form. It means that the native title holder is entitled to enter and share access to the land and is entitled to carry out cultural activities including camping, fishing, hunting and ceremonial activities. The native title holder is not able to exclude others from entering the land or to lease, sell or impose fees. Exclusive title is less common and means that the native title holder can enter the land and exclude others and can use the land for cultural purposes. They’re not able to sell the land and may lease it out for commercial or other purposes. More than 50 per cent of the Australian mainland is now under native title. 

A lesser-known form of Aboriginal land claim can be made pursuant to the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991. Under this act, the state government may give away Crown land or convert non-exclusive native title land into inalienable freehold land to an Aboriginal corporation. This would allow the title holder to do anything with the land except sell it. They could exclude others from accessing Aboriginal land. This process bypasses all requirements of the Native Title Act. Requirements to consult are more limited than those under the Native Title Act. That requires more open disclosure. There are currently 15 Queensland townships under attack using this method, which is often stealthy and secretive. This practice must stop as it’s creating advantages based purely on race. Whose town is next? 

Question agreed to. 


/2 Comments/by

Ravenshoe: Join Us for a Q&A Session!

,

This is YOUR chance to have your voice heard! Bring your questions, share your concerns, and hear directly from Brenda Turner, who is seeking to be your representative in the Queensland parliament after this election.  Let’s dive into the key issues shaping Queensland and Australia, and other matters of concern.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist, author and speaker

📅 Thursday, 5 September 2024  

🕒 6 pm to 8 pm

📍 Ravenshoe Hotel, 34 Grigg Street, Ravenshoe

👉RSVP today and secure your spot! https://qld.onenation.org.au/q-a-in-ravenshoe

Plan on dining in? Please book your meals direct with the Ravenshoe Hotel on (07) 4097 6136

/by

Cairns: Free Community Forum

,

Crime is out of control in Queensland and it’s affecting every single one of us. Too many in our community have suffered due to a broken system.  With Queensland’s police force struggling under immense pressure, more officers are leaving than joining and courts keep releasing repeat offenders. The result? More crimes, more danger.

Innocent lives are at risk—whether it’s through reckless crashes involving stolen cars or home invasions. The financial toll is just as devastating: property damage, soaring insurance premiums, and thousands spent on extra security because the system can’t protect us.

Join us as we discuss this and other key issues that impact you and your family. Let’s stand together and demand stronger laws, more police and real consequences for those who commit these crimes. 

There can be hope only for a society which acts as one big family, not as many separate ones – Anwar Sadat

📅 Wednesday, 4 September 2024  

🕒 6 pm to 8 pm

📍 Cairns Showgrounds – De Jarlais Function Centre, 127-129 Mulgrave Rd, Parramatta Park

Please help us keep track of numbers.  RSVP here: https://qld.onenation.org.au/crime-forum-in-cairns

/by

The Current Native Title System Fails Aboriginals

,

I support referring the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because it’s hurting mainland Aboriginals. The current system is racist and is locking up land, preventing Aboriginals, especially in remote areas, from benefiting.  Since the Native Title Act of 1993, 54% of Australia’s land has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal, yet Native Title offers no practical benefits to Aboriginal people. Instead, it empowers a few wealthy community barons – both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal (the Aboriginal Industry) and fails to meet the needs of individuals like Bruce Gibson, an Aboriginal leader who cannot own land in his community or use it to advance his business.  Aboriginal people cannot use the land to build homes or support businesses, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians. 

The Mabo decision, which was originally about land rights on Murray Island in the Torres Strait, recognised a system of land title that was passed down through generations, effectively preventing those without title from claiming the land. This system existed in the Torres Strait but did not exist on the mainland. The Mabo decision should not have been extended beyond this context, however it wasn’t the High Court that extended it; it was the Labor Party under Paul Keating that did so, creating something that was not grounded in reality.

We need to review the Native Title Act, introduce sunset clauses, and stop closing landmarks based on obsolete practices. It’s time to rethink the native title regime for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, AND all Australians.  This system is failing them, just like the Closing the Gap program.  

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (18:36): I support the referral of the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because the native title system is currently hurting mainland
Aboriginals. In practice, native title is racist against Aboriginal people. I also support the reference because I support Australia and all Australians—one united nation, one nation.

Since the introduction of the Native Title Act into Australian law in 1993, more than 50 per cent of the Australian land mass has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal—54 per cent, to be precise. The legislation, though, is not a true reflection of what was in fact determined in the High Court, which considered the unique circumstances of Mr Eddie Mabo’s family and the situation on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. The Native Title Act, when drafted, relied significantly on United Nations declarations, which were mentioned six times in a 2½ page preamble. That’s what it’s all about—United Nations declarations and other agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Locking up land from private ownership is on the UN agenda.

What is not so well understood is the total failure of the Native Title Act to provide practical benefits to the lives of Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. That’s why it is racist. It is hurting and holding back Aboriginals, especially those in remote areas of Australia. Less well known is that some native title claims grant exclusive rights which may allow the native title holder to exclude non-Aboriginals from accessing the land—fact.

This may prevent other Australians accessing beaches and landmarks of significance unless they pay for the privilege. More symbolic than practical, the act has effectively locked up large tracts of land from the use or benefit of individual Aboriginal people. It’s locked them out. The only ones who have benefited under the act are those wealthy community barons, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who are part of the white and black Aboriginal industry and rip off needy Aboriginals. Instead, they divert much of the billions of dollars in Aboriginal funding to themselves, sucking it up and keeping it from the people in the communities. Those who benefit are the white and black Aboriginal academics, activists, Aboriginal community leaders, shonky lawyers and dodgy Aboriginal corporations, who do nothing to help individual Aboriginals.

I’ve travelled widely through Aboriginal communities across Queensland, including every Cape York community—sometimes three times through a community. I’ve been to all of the communities at least twice. When we were in Cape York, we met with local community leader Mr Bruce Gibson, for example. He’s one of many. He shared his views on native title and its impact on his community. And, by the way, we hear these
comments from Aboriginal elders in other parts of Queensland as well, in communities like Gympie and Maryborough—mainstream communities. Anyway, getting back to Mr Bruce Gibson, he said that native title was
important for the recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and for recognising that Aboriginal people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they had inherent rights to the land.

That’s fine. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Aboriginal people—and, remember, Mr Gibson is an Aboriginal from an Aboriginal community and a fine man—with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. It’s racist, because white people in this country can go and buy land. They can use that as collateral for a business loan or for building their own family house. Aboriginal people in communities cannot. The land is locked up and given to the barons of the community. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects or family homes. It’s racist. It hurts Aboriginals.

This would seem contrary to the effective intention of the legislators. If the act is supposed to benefit hardworking Australian Aboriginals, it’s failing, just as the Closing the Gap program has failed. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home, and the property is now locked away out of reach. The Commonwealth government can reclaim land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners. Yet this does not benefit any individuals. With individual landownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial community or personal goals.

Bruce Gibson said that he wished to own his own place in his community. He cannot. Why? Because he’s Aboriginal on an Aboriginal community. That’s why. Native title doesn’t look after him. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner, yet he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners, if he says the right things. These comments were echoed across the Cape, from constituents to council mayors and council members. It was universal—every community. There was not one person to whom we spoke who had a good thing to say about native title other than it providing some recognition to them as First Australians. That’s why native title is racist. It hurts Aboriginals.

Coming back to the Mabo decision, the Mabo decision was based correctly on Mr Mabo’s island in the Torres Strait Islands—Murray Island, I think it is. But that was because there was a system of handing down title of land to succeeding generations. It was a means of keeping people who didn’t hold title to the land out of their land. That system was in the Torres Strait. It was not on the mainland. There was no system of land tenure on the mainland. That Mabo decision should not have been extended. It wasn’t extended by the High Court. It was extended by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. They made that up, and it’s a falsity.

I want to go to some key points that I’ve made in notes. With native title, there are no individual needs being met—no universal human needs. It’s just a feel-good policy to make a few people in the inner-city areas think we’ve handed land back to the Aboriginals, when we never took it, and it hasn’t been handed back. It’s been taken off whoever had it. It provides enormous uncertainty regarding development, which is holding back Aboriginal communities. There’s confusion between native title and the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 in Queensland. They’re two separate issues. They’re both taking up land in Queensland.

There are many uncertainties in claims of native title, like two families claiming the same land. In some cases, one family from interstate is granted the land when the local Aboriginal people are denied the land. It’s rife with these kinds of false claims. Look at Toobeah. Look at Deebing Creek near Ipswich. That hurts the Aboriginals. It also deflects and hides from Aboriginals’ core problems, and they have got problems in remote communities, not in all remote communities—they’re different; they vary—but there are problems. But they’re not being fixed by the white and black Aboriginal industry. The problems are being exacerbated exactly as Senator Hanson mentioned.

Let me tell you a story about my first time as a senator. I was walking up to the One Nation office in Brisbane, and three Aboriginal people approached me. I talked to them, and they said they were from the Northern Territory. I said, ‘What are you doing here then?’ They said: ‘We’ve come to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who understands our problems and the only one with the guts to tell the truth. She’s the only one.’ These are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory who came down from the Territory to Brisbane to see Senator Hanson because she’s the only one who gets it and she’s the only one who understands.

There’s a flow-on from the guilt and grievance industry, the white and black Aboriginal industry that I mentioned, that’s hurting and suppressing Aboriginals, entrenching dependence and entrenching victimhood. The Aboriginal people are wonderful people, essentially salt of the Earth. Why are we keeping them down? Why are we suppressing them under a blanket of bureaucracy?

We need sunset clauses on native title applications, just like the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act of 1991. It had a sunset clause that came into force in 2006. We need a moratorium on native title allocations. We need to review the Native Title Act, and that’s why I support this reference. We need to reverse the closing of landmarks. Prominent Aboriginals in this country have admitted that the closing of landmarks is based on obsolete practices. The closing of Mount Warning was strongly opposed by an Aboriginal elder, a woman, but her voice was not heard. It was suppressed. Mr Marc Hendrix is doing a marvellous job of publicising the truth about Mount Warning’s closure. It was a bunch of gutless bureaucrats and politicians from the New South Wales state government that succeeded to rubbish. It succeeded to the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, and it was spread by a small, tiny group and opposed by Aboriginals, including elders. Wise females were just ignored, just buried. The One Nation MPs, I’m sure, will review the Aboriginal Land Act of 1991 in Queensland, and also we need a review of the Native Title Act.

I’m going to make some comments about Senator Ayres. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Senator Ayres put together not one single coherent point, just a lot of labels and lies. That was all we got from Senator Ayres. He retreated. He put forward no arguments. It was all just hollow words. Pauline Hanson is known for her love of Australia and her love of Australians, regardless of skin colour. Let me tell you a story from when we first came to Canberra in the Senate in 2016. We went to the Griffith Vietnamese Restaurant, where a lot of politicians have gone over the years and written on the walls. We couldn’t get out of the place because the Vietnamese people, the other Asian people, wanted autographs with Senator Hanson. Why? Because she protects the country. She protects the country and makes sure we keep our values in this country. That’s why Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people and Middle Eastern people come to this country—because they like the values of this country. We have got to protect that.
These concerns about native title are echoed right across Queensland and in other parts, including across the Territory as well. We know from prominent Aboriginals that they agree with Senator Hanson and with me. It’s way over time for this native title regime to be reconsidered, and I recommend its referral to this committee for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for the benefit of all Australians. Thank you.


/by

Community Forum in Carrara

,

We will be discussing the issue of Native Title, plus other topics that matter to you and your family. Joining us will be Geologist, Blogger and Author – Marc Hendrickx.

If ongoing legal actions by Indigenous groups and individuals succeed, over half of Queensland could be covered by native title claims. According to maps from the National Native Title Tribunal, nearly 600,000 square kilometres of the state have been claimed since 1994, following the High Court’s landmark Mabo decision that recognized native title | https://senroberts.com/qld-native-title

Hosted by Sandy Roach, the One Nation Candidate for Gaven, this is a great opportunity to engage in conversation and connect with the community.

📅 Tuesday, 6 August 2024
🕒 6:30 pm
📍 Croatian Club, 181 Nerang Broadbeach Road, Carrara

RSVP: https://qld.onenation.org.au/keep-open-the-gates-to-awe-and-wonder

There is a small $5 entry fee to help cover costs.

/by

A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical

,

One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.

Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process. 

While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population.  It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.

During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.

There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.

Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction.  It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.

The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: 

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race 

I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors. 

This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people. 

More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits. 

I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business. 

Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda. 

Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land. 

/10 Comments/by

Join Us in Inglewood!

,

Join us for a community forum discussing Crime, Cost of Living, Renewables … and more!

Liz Suduk, your One Nation Candidate for the October Queensland State Election, will be joining me to hear any concerns affecting you and your community!

Dining in? Book your meals directly with the Inglewood Hotel by calling (07) 4652 1374

RSVP here: https://senroberts.com/3XP8fDL

Saturday, 13 July 2024

5:30 pm to 8:30 pm

Inglewood Hotel
79 Albert Street, Inglewood
/1 Comment/by

Join Us in Toobeah!

,

Join us for a discussion on Native Title … and more! Liz Suduk, your One Nation Candidate for the upcoming Queensland State Election, will be joining me to hear your concerns on this and other issues affecting you and your community!

Dining in? Book your meals directly with the Toobeah Hotel by calling (07) 4677 5280

RSVP here: https://senroberts.com/3WcJGPJ

Saturday, 13 July 2024

11 am to 1:30 pm

Toobeah Hotel Motel
Lot 8 Barwon Highway, Toobeah
/by

Native Title Inquiry Needed Now

I spoke in support of Senator Hanson’s motion for an inquiry into Native Title.

The problem many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we speak to have continuously raised with us is that under Native Title the land is locked up and can’t benefit from it. That’s about half of Australia locked up under Native Title and held with the government. Is it any wonder the United Nations is so interested in Native Title?

The white and black aboriginal industry consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats. They all claim to be ‘closing the gap’ between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ standard of living and other non aboriginal Australians. The fundamental flaw in this system is that those running the industry are parasitically living off the money that is given to the aboriginal communities. It is a self-perpetuating problem.

Every year the billions of taxpayers’ dollars poured into solving the problem is being syphoned off by the same individuals who “claim” to be helping. Very little of the money makes it through to those in need.

You may recall when the Western nations were called upon to donate to ease the famine in African nations, very little of that aid often didn’t make it past the greedy government bureaucrats. This is what’s going on in Australia now. The pressure to scale it up is significant, but it will only increase the size of the industry and make it worse. What is needed is a solution to the Native Title problem that’s locking up the land. A sunset clause in the Native Title act should also be included. We need accountability within the white and black aboriginal industry.

Autonomy and accountability is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hungry for, yet they are being blocked by those who are living off the industry in the cities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

It’s time to close the gap for good. We need this inquiry.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson’s motion, which I’ll read for clarification. It states:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:

(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and

(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.

We want an inquiry.

Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek’s latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.

One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.

When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.

It’s really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It’s no wonder that we see the words ‘United Nations’ so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don’t realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can’t get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.

These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we’ve heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.

When asked about the government’s closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don’t talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They’ve stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That’s what’s going on in this country. It’s important for many people to keep the gap wide open.

I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I’ve been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, ‘What about closing the gap?’ Some people said, ‘What’s closing the gap?’ Others said, ‘It’s useless.’ When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, ‘Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.’ The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.

My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It’s caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.

Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.

Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won’t change without accountability. The people in the communities that I’ve listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.

I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I’m advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What’s wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?

As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I’m advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it’s working and to go back to fundamentals. ‘Thirty-one years,’ Senator Rennick said. ‘We need an inquiry. We’re the house of review.’ I concur with Senator Rennick.

Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don’t know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.

/7 Comments/by

Over 40% of Australian Land Mass under native title

, ,

With 40% of Australian land mass currently under a successful native title claim, you can see how estimates of up to 80% of Australia being claimed under native title by 2050 are very possible. There are currently 177 native title claims awaiting determination right now.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you for attending today. My questions are to do with native title projections.

Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What are the current costs of administrating administering Australian native title claims each year, please?

Kathleen Denley, assistant secretary of the native title unit. So the approximate cost per year is 140 million. I don’t have the exact breakdown, but I can get it for you. The majority of that money goes to the national indigenous Australians agency who pay for native title representative bodies. There’s also money that then goes to, for example the Federal Court, the National Native Title Tribunal. There’s some administered funding that goes to native title respondents funding schemes. There’s also an anthropologist scheme which the department administers for some funding for native title anthropologists and some money that departments such as NIAA and AGD expend.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s a massive undertaking. Could, could we get the breakdown on notice please?

Certainly

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Secondly, how many claims have been finalised to date?

Senator just to clarify, do you mean native title claims as distinct from state compensation claims?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yes.

I’ll have to find the exact figure for you Senator. According to the data held by the NNTT as of the 3rd of May, there are 524 determinations and 177 active claimant applications

And of those determinations Senator 416 are consent determinations and 53 were litigated determinations.

[Malcolm Roberts] How many 53 did you say?

Result of litigated determination.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What human resources are being used to assist progressive progressing native title claims.

Could you

[Malcolm Roberts] How many people in the department are working on that?

Oh, so the native title unit in the attorney General’s department? So I think we have approximately 14 staff. However, the unit is also working on things other than native titles, such as the closing, the gap measures in conjunction with the national indigenous Australian agency

[Malcolm Roberts] And how many people would be employed full-time equivalent on, on government funding outside the department?

Senator, Just before we go onto outside of the department we also, our legal assistance area would also process claims under a number of schemes. I don’t have those details. We’ll take them on notice and I’ll give you an estimate if you

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. How many claims are currently in the system yet to be finalised? Is that a 177 active?

That’s right. That’s of native title determinations. There are also native title compensation claims that are currently before the courts.

[Malcolm Roberts] How many of them?

I think there’s approximately 15, 14 or 15.

[Malcolm Roberts] When is it considered that the remainder of unfinalised claims will be finalised?

I’d have to take that question on notice. I think there’s a range of cases that are still before the courts for a variety of different reasons. I’d, I’d have to take the question on notice to see if there was a projection by the federal court.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What proportion of the Australian landmass is currently under finalised native title?

So 40.5% are covered by a determination and 6.3% are covered by a determination that there is no native title or that native title has been extinguished.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. There have been some assessments made by persons including Warren Mundine and Josephine Cashman. Who’s an indigenous lawyer and activist predicting that that finalised native title claims will cover 70 to 80% of the Australian land mass by the 2050s. Is this estimate reasonably correct? If finalise claims as successful?

I’m not sure I could accurately comment on that particular percentage. What I could say is in terms of the indigenous land estate once Al Rowe or Aboriginal land rights act findings are also taken into account. The overall indigenous land estate is larger. Of course it’s, it’s uncertain what the percentage would be that it would be based on individual circumstances of cases that are before the federal court. But we would, I think, expect that the overall percentage would increase, but I couldn’t comment on that exact percentage.

[Malcolm Roberts] Senator, if I can add to that, of course when the court makes a determination of native title it might be exclusive native title. What might be non-exclusive native title. So we could have land that’s subject to native title but that doesn’t mean that it’s subject to exclusive native title. If you understand where I’m going with that.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Yep. So it will be, you don’t know whether it’ll be a lot more than the current 46 and a half percent

We would expect it to increase

[Malcolm Roberts] Increase. But you don’t know how much. I’m not not complaining about that. I’m just, just trying to pin it down broadly. So next question, Aboriginal people of Australia currently represent around 3.3% of Australia’s population. Yet native title does not allow individual ownership of land under native title claim, as I understand it. This will effectively lock up a large proportion of Australian land that is no longer available as private freehold property to any individual Australian to purchase. Was this an intended consequence of the introduction of native title to lock up the land?

So the purpose of the native title is to recognise pre-existing interest in land and the court will make that determination based on evidence before it. So if there has been pre-existing laws and customs as the secretary outlined before, it will be it will depend on the individual circumstances as to the extent of those rights. In some instances they may be exclusive but in some instances it may be more limited such as a right to hunt and gather. It could be a right to continue a particular cultural practise. So it will change in every circumstances to the extent of those rights.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Is it true that Aboriginal people are not able to build or buy and own their home on land under native title? Because that’s what I’ve been told by people in communities.

So native title isn’t free hold title although exclusive native title in some circumstances has been considered similar by the nature of the rights that are given. However, as I mentioned, it really does depend on the finding of those individual rights.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

The native title act also contains the regime where the native title holding groups can themselves decide whether they wish to permit activities, to take place on land that is subject to native title. So it would be open to a native title group to in fact say that if they wish to that they would allow individual members of that group to, to build housing on that land and to have, for example, 99 year type leasehold arrangement. But that’s a matter for the group themselves as to whether they wish to do that or not.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. It is, it’s much more complex than people think then. Is it true that land under native title cannot be used as security for a loan to assist an Aboriginal person? Or is that following on from what you just said?

So, because if someone was to default on a loan, for example native title land, can’t then be repossessed by a financer financier. So that that’s not to say that financial institutions aren’t capable of devising financial ways of actually lending to, to native title groups based upon assets and revenue streams that a native title holding group might have. I mean, a native title holding group might have revenue streams, if they’ve agreed to mining, for example on the land and things like that. So it, again, it’s more complex than it might seem.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Two more questions. What is the relationship between the United nations and the native title act given the extensive reference to the UN in the acts preamble?

Are you referring to a particular treaty or?

[Malcolm Roberts] No, just a, just a broad understanding of the relationship between the UN and the native title act.

I guess broadly the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. I, I’m not sure of the particular reference

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay.

The declaration on the rights of indigenous people postdates the, the native native title act that was passed before that, that declaration. So like my, my colleague, Ms. Stanley, I’m not sure about the references to the UN in the preamble. The native title act is an act passed by this parliament. So it’s, it’s a piece of domestic legislation in that sense.

[Malcolm Roberts] So who would be the best person or agency to do find out more on that?

Look, we, we can take on, on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, could we come and see you? No need to take it on notice.

You actually want a meeting?

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. Just a briefing on it. Yeah. Better understanding. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, we intend to, we have been. Has native title improved the living circumstances of the majority of Aboriginal persons in Australia.

Are you asking me for a personal opinion? I’m not sure I can give that sense.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s probably not

With all due respect to the official, that’s exactly right.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s fine.

But a briefing will be facilitated for you Senator Robert.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much.

Thank you very much Senator Robert.

Thank you.

If I could just interject for a minute to going back to the previous witness I appreciate the answers being direct and concise. It’s very helpful.

/by