ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2013.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:15): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill and the opposition is supporting the legislation. I will put on the record, though, that the Leader of the Opposition (the member for Norwood) is the current shadow minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He is very passionate about Aboriginal affairs. However, leaders are very busy, whether they are the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition, so he is tied up and cannot be here today.

Ms Chapman: He's meeting with the APY people.

Mr Gardner: He's with the minister.

Dr McFETRIDGE: As I understand it, he is actually meeting with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and representatives from the APY lands. The whole area of Aboriginal affairs in South Australia is one that I have been involved in since my early teaching days at Port Augusta. I remember driving the school bus out to the then Davenport mission. Talking to families and the kids who I was teaching out there, I saw some of the issues and some of the wonderful things that were happening. When I came to this place, that spurred me on to become involved on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Part of the role of that committee is to look at all the legislation involving Aboriginal affairs and to look at the Aboriginal Lands Trust as one of its prime objectives. The Aboriginal Lands Trust Act is a piece of legislation that was first passed in 1966, but there have been continual questions about the legality of the leases involved with Lands Trust property. The wants and wishes of people involved on those various properties have changed. There is a need to change the leasing arrangements; in fact, even freeholding in some areas of some of these properties. These properties are right across South Australia.

The new act is going to clear up the objects and purposes of the act to make it more like other modern pieces of legislation. The new act will clear up the functions of the trust and it also requires now that the trustee get ministerial permission for dealings with the land, which is not going to be an onerous thing to do. The trust, the minister, the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and the Leader of the Opposition have worked in a very consultative way for many years and I am sure that that will not be seen to be a slight in any way, shape or form, because it should not be interpreted that way.

Another problem with the act is that some of the regulatory requirements for good land management—for example, natural resources management—have been quite restrictive, so the new bill will change that. The old 1966 act does not allow land to be used for the full economic potential of the land and the communities upon it. The new 2013 act, which it will become after it has been through this place, addresses some of these issues. It will enable the trust to acquire, hold and deal with trust land for the benefit of Aboriginal South Australians; the efficient and effective management and development of trust land; and legislative consultation for people with interest in the land before any proposed changes.

Sorry, I am mistaken there. The bill actually removes the ministerial approval. I do make the point, though, that it has always worked in a collaborative way in the past, but the bill actually removes that ministerial approval on land transfers. The potential creation of a commercial development advisory committee is also in the new bill, as are increased opportunities for economic development on trust land.

The legislation also allows a new eight-person Aboriginal board, with members who are appointed on a skills basis rather than the prior representational system. Trust appointments are made by the Governor, based upon recommendations of a selection panel established by the minister, comprising Aboriginal people from both the public and private sector.

This has been a bipartisan issue in the past. The leader, the shadow attorney-general and certainly the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee have received information on this. I must say, the committee has not had as full briefings as it would have liked, and that is an issue which I hope will be solved by the recent passage of my piece of legislation that removed the minister as the presiding member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

The first statutory function of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee is to review the operations of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act. This bit of legislation here is that first real review, which has been going on for a number of years. There is a long history of pushing for a review by the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. The standing committee has taken formal evidence from the Aboriginal Lands Trust Committee on three occasions; that was in March 2004, June 2005 and December 2006. On each occasion the need for the act to be reviewed was discussed.

The standing committee also discussed the proposed review with other parties on 10 November 2004. Mr Peter Buckskin, then chief executive officer for the Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, told the committee that the minister had advised the trust of his intention to conduct a review of the act and that the terms of reference for the review had been drafted. A copy of the draft terms of reference was subsequently forwarded to the parliamentary committee.

On 1 December 2004 Mr Klynton Wanganeen, then ATSIC commissioner for South Australia, appeared before the committee. He indicated, along with other SA land rights acts, that it needed to be 'reviewed properly and comprehensively'. On 1 December 2004, Mr Peter Buckskin appeared before the committee again. He indicated that DAARE was in the process of preparing a paper detailing how it intended to conduct consultations as part of the review process. He also stated that his department was gathering information on the core business of the trust, including its responsibilities with respect to leasing and subleasing arrangements.

Mr Buckskin indicated that DAARE hoped to finish the proposed review by the middle of 2005, though he noted this was an ambitious time line—in the middle of 2005. We are in November 2013 now, so how time flies when you are having fun. And wasn't Mr Buckskin right? It was an ambitious time line. Mr Buckskin stressed the importance of the more immediate goals of finalising the terms of reference and securing the necessary resources to ensure a review, when undertaken, was thorough and satisfactory. We have had the review, we have got the legislation, and it will go through this place this afternoon, the penultimate day of this parliament.

On 1 June 2005 a representative of DAARE, Ms Anne Stimson, accompanied the trust at its appearance before the committee. Ms Stimson indicated that the review of the act had been deferred to enable the trust to concentrate on the renewal of its leasing arrangements. The committee heard that the trust was, with the assistance of the state government, developing a new set of standard leases that will be 'very easy for communities to read and understand so that they can administer their leasing arrangements [themselves] and be autonomous and independent to that extent.'

The trust and Ms Stimson indicated they intended to conduct consultations on the proposed changes to the leasing arrangements with each trust community 'on a one-to-one basis over the next few months'. I just remind the house that was back on 1 June 2005. At the committee's meeting with the Aboriginal Lands Trust on 4 December 2006 the committee was told that the trust would 'welcome' a review of the act providing it was 'part of the process'. It also spoke of its frustration at the lack of progress that had been made to resolve the issues of leasing arrangements. The note I have here states:

Since senior officers from AARD and DPC advised the ALT Trust Board in December 2004 that an early resolution would occur under their auspices, progress has been minimal. The Board has not been provided with copies of Crown Law advice. The Board has not been provided with copies of ministerial approvals. The Board has not reviewed any drafts of the new streamlined leasing arrangements being designed by Crown Law. The Board has not received any advice on how the significant difficulties of subleasing under the existing Act will be overcome...

The board's evidence states:

We were initially told that it would take about six months to have all these leases reinstated—

That is, the Aboriginal Lands Trust board was told that it would take about six months to have all the leases reinstated. It continues:

That was two years ago, but we are now being told that people within DPC are working on it but it looks like it might take another two years.

Just to remind the house, that was in December 2006; so the ambitious targets were disappearing into the sunset yet again. On 19 February 2007, Ms Jos Mazel, executive director, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division (AARD), told the committee:

I think there is a common view that the Act does have to be reviewed…

I should not laugh, but it is farcical the way this has been allowed to drag on for so long. Ms Mazel told the committee:

I think there is a common view that the Act does have to be reviewed, that it needs to be modernised. It is not fulfilling the purposes for which it was intended. So, I think there is broad agreement that it needs to be reviewed. This Minister is committed to reviewing the Act—

I cannot remember which minister it was at the time. I think it was the Premier, Jay Weatherill, the member for Cheltenham, at that time. I do not think it was the late Hon. Terry Roberts. I will have to leave that one, but I think it was the current premier who was the minister at that time. Anyway, Ms Mazel's evidence to the committee continued on:

Now, the terms of reference and the extent of the review are still being negotiated. We would always consult with the ALT about that, and they will be part of the process of determining the extent of the review and also participating in the outcome.

That was February 2007. In the course of her evidence, Ms Mazel continued and commented on the work of renewing the leases and subleases for trust properties. In her evidence, Ms Mazel said:

We have tried to focus on the leases for a period of time and we have written up charts about which leases are valid, which leases are invalid. We have to locate all the third parties that might have been interested in the leases and that has not been easy. We have written letters to the communities. We are waiting for responses back from the communities to identify who some of the third parties might be.

Ms Mazel suggested that it had not been possible for AARD to finalise new leasing arrangements because at the request of the trust, it needed to work on other matters. Again I remind the house, that was in February 2007.

A number of other Aboriginal communities came and gave evidence to the committee, and they all raised issues of leases, subleases and their concerns with the way the Aboriginal Lands Trust was acting. Those committees included Iga Warta at Nepabunna in October 2005, the Jerry Mason Centre from Waikerie in November 2005, Nalta Ruwe at CDEP from Gerard in November 2005, and Umoona community in October 2006.

The trust holds titles for more than 60 parcels of land. This includes the title for eight discrete Aboriginal communities—Davenport, Gerard, Koonibba, Nepabunna, Point Pearce, Raukkan, Umoona and Yalata. Until recently—and this is a few years ago some of this information—all eight of these communities received federal funding to deliver municipal and administrative services and that was an issue that the lands trust was trying to cope with at that stage.

The standing committee heard a lot of evidence over a lot of time about the need for the act to be reviewed, and as the progress was dragging on I actually moved in the standing committee—we have had to try to search our archives for this email where I gave notice to other members and the members of the committee. We have not been able to find the original email, but I think the approximate date was 18 March 2007.

Some of the members then were the current member for Giles Lyn Breuer, Lea Stevens, and I think we even had a Democrat and a few others. It was a real mix and match, the committee at that stage. Back in March 2007, I moved that the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee 'Inquire into and report on the operation and effectiveness of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966', and as part of that inquiry examine:

1. the constitution, functions, powers and resources of the Aboriginal Lands Trust;

2. the past and present role and activities of the Aboriginal Lands Trust;

3. opportunities for, and impediments to, the successful and sustainable development of communities located on land held under the Act;

4. opportunities for, and impediments to, economic activity on land held under the Act;

5. the funding and delivery of services to communities located on land held under the Act;

6. the funding and maintenance of infrastructure, including community housing, on land held under the Act;

7. existing and possible land tenure arrangements under the Act; and

8. any other relevant matters.

We called for submissions. If my memory is correct, we put adverts in The Advertiser, The Independent Weekly, the National Indigenous Times and the Courier Mail. We also sent out invitations for formal submissions to the Aboriginal Lands Trust; all lessees and sublessees of the trust, including eight Aboriginal communities; the Local Government Association of South Australia; the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, who provide untied funding to Nepabunna, Gerard and Yalata; and the five district councils that have a trust community located within their boundaries.

We sent an invitation for formal submissions to the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division, Primary Industries and Regions SA, Office for Aboriginal Housing, South Australian Police, the Department for Education and Children's Services, Anangu Pitjantjatjara and Maralinga Tjarutja, the Indigenous Land Corporation, the Law Society of South Australia, and I think there were a couple of others as well.

We received evidence at that stage from crown law. They appeared and gave some evidence on the current act. We called the trust and asked it to give evidence and we also asked for other witnesses to come and give evidence to the committee. That was in March 2007.

Going back even a bit further than all of that, in March 1987 the South Australian government announced a review of the ALT act. The review team included Bob Weir, Garry Hiskey (now Magistrate Hiskey), Colin Cook and Val Power.

Mr Marshall: When was that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: That was in March 1987. Then I think the former premier, Mike Rann, was the minister for aboriginal affairs at the time and he engaged one consultant in July 1989, one Don Dunstan, to complete the separate review of Aboriginal community government, and I have a copy of that somewhere. I could not get my hands on it today, unfortunately, but it is an interesting read for anybody who wants a copy of it—the Dunstan report into Aboriginal community government. It was something that was done with good faith and, in section 5(3) of the Dunstan report, Dunstan responded to the draft report produced by the ALT review team.

Don Dunstan noted that the main recommendations of the ALT act review of relevance to the current exercise—that is Dunstan's work—were the granting of inalienable freehold and community title to existing ALT communities rather than leasing from the ALT, and two, ability for individual committee members to acquire freehold title for residential purposes. So, Don Dunstan's comment on the original review back in 1987 was that, and I repeat that again—granting of inalienable freehold and community title to existing ALT communities, rather than leasing from the ALT, and two, the ability for individual community members to acquire freehold title for residential purposes.

We do not see it going that far this time, but I think there are people involved with the ALT and in the ALT communities that might think about what Don Dunstan said in his comments way back in 1989. Dunstan indicated that he did not support those recommendations as they could lead to the fragmentation of title, but those recommendations were of relevance to all Aboriginal people in South Australia and I think are as relevant today as they were back then.

The saga of the review of this act continued on and the next little episode, shall I say, was in November 2008 when everybody got excited because in The Advertiser newspaper there was an article by Mr Miles Kemp entitled, 'Shake-up to rid Aboriginal land of illegal leases'. This was The Advertiser on 20 November 2008. Unfortunately, Mr Kemp in his article made comments:

Legitimate leases will be reinstated by parliament after a sweeping review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966...

Then he goes on to say:

However, for the first time since 1966, the Aboriginal Affairs Minister controversially has the power to direct the board...

And then he went on to say:

Other changes to be put to parliament...

And he said a few other things there. We, as members of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, obviously took great interest in that article because it was a long way from what we had knowledge of, and so we actually wrote to Mr Melvin Mansell, the editor of The Advertiser, in December 2008. I only have a copy of a draft letter, but I am certain that we did actually send this letter because it was of great concern to the committee. I will read it into Hansard, anyway, because this was the level of concern at the time. The letter, written by Ms Sarah Alpers, who was the very hard-working committee secretary at that time, states:

I am writing on behalf of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, which is a multi-partisan Committee of the South Australian Parliament comprising of Members from the House of Assembly and Legislative Council.

The Committee's Presiding Member is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, the Hon. Jay Weatherill MP, and it has broad functions to inquire into matters affecting the welfare of Aboriginal people, including the operation of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966.

The Committee is aware of an article written by Mr Miles Kemp in The Advertiser on 20 November 2008, entitled 'Shake-up to rid Aboriginal land of illegal leases'. The Committee has resolved at a recent meeting that a letter would be written to you to outline its concerns in relation to the content and impact of this article.

The Committee believes the article to be inaccurate in relation to a number of statements, all of which assume that a review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966, has already occurred and that decisions have been made as to changes to the Act. This is not the case.

On 20 November 2008, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation—

I remind the house that was the Hon. Jay Weatherill—

announced the commencement of the review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966, and the publication of the review's Discussion paper.

While, in many ways, we would have liked Mr Kemp's article to have been true, inasmuch as that the review had been completed and settled in a bipartisan way, it was not, so it was false hope. We have a long history of looking at the review of the 1966 act. I have some comments from the late Joy Baluch, who was then president of the Local Government Association when she wrote to the then minister for environment and conservation, and also the minister for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation (the Hon. Jay Weatherill MP), talking about the review of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act and pointing out some of the issues associated with that review.

As the house can grasp by now, there have been so many issues, so many reports, so many questions and so much evidence given over many, many years, going right back to that 1987 inquiry. As I said, I moved a motion to inquire on behalf of the parliament in 2007. It has been going on for a long, long time. The functions of the act have been updated, the outcomes for Aboriginal people have hopefully been improved, the functioning of the trust will improve, and the range of expertise and abilities on the trust has been broadened.

I have met with many of the trust members over many years, and the trust have done a very good job to the best of their ability, but we are moving on to different times, different demands, different expectations and different aspirations. This bill is before us now at long last—at very long last—and so I commend the bill to the house. Again, I recognise the great work that has been done, not only by the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee but also by many members of this house.

There are many members of this place who are very passionate about Aboriginal affairs in South Australia. I am certainly very proud to be serving as a member of the Liberal team in this place under the current leader (the member for Norwood) who I know is a very passionate advocate for Aboriginal affairs. As a member of Reconciliation SA, he has a long, proud history involving Aboriginal affairs, and I know that he is certainly a strong supporter of this new piece of legislation. I support the bill.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (16:37): It is my great pleasure to rise to speak on the Aboriginal Lands Trust Bill 2013. As the member for Morphett indicated, I am a past serving member on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, and can I just say I was very pleased and felt very privileged to be appointed to represent my party on that important standing committee of the South Australian parliament. I learned much in my role on that committee, and I would like to thank the member for Morphett for his mentorship in this important role that we need to consider here as members of the South Australian parliament.

As the member for Morphett also indicated, I have served on the board of Reconciliation SA as the Liberal Party's representative. This is my fourth year, and it has been a great honour to serve on that board, along with some incredibly dedicated people, including the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement in South Australia, Khatija Thomas, who I see is here with us today in the gallery, and so she should be.

Today, of course, we are debating this bill—although, in a funny way, I think 'debating' is the wrong term, because this is a bill which will receive bipartisan support, and so it should, because it is a very important bill for the people of South Australia. The Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 1966 provided Aboriginal communities across South Australia with the secure title to significant parcels of lands here in South Australia.

It was the first legislation in Australia to recognise the strong cultural and spiritual ties that Aboriginal people have to their land. It was also the first legislation in Australia to give Aboriginal people a legal collective right to their land and to go towards partially redressing the pain suffered by Aboriginal people at the hands of European settlers over the loss of their traditional lands. It was an important precursor to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981, another landmark Aboriginal land rights bill introduced by the former Liberal premier of South Australia the Hon. David Tonkin.

Today, more than four decades after the act was passed, the trust now holds a portfolio of land totalling half a million hectares valued at approximately $60 million, located in various metropolitan, regional and remote areas of the state. In total, the trust holds 64 separate properties, including properties at Koonibba, Oak Valley, Camp Coorong, Wardang Island, Raukkan, and two Anangu communities at Umoona and Yalata. The trust is managed by a 13-member board, comprising a chairperson, representatives from 11 Aboriginal community councils and organisations, and a ministerial appointee.

The act is 47 years old. There have been major social, economic and legal changes since its time which have, of course, rendered the act quite outdated. So, as the member for Morphett outlined to the house, there has been a quite extensive number of attempts to review this act since it was first implemented in 1966. The first of these came in April 1977, when the trust provided the government with 14 proposed amendments to the act, which were not adopted by the government.

As the member for Morphett outlined, in 1987 the then government announced a major review of the act. Unfortunately that never came to fruition. In December 2004 Mr Klynton Wanganeen, a former commissioner for Indigenous engagement here in South Australia and the then South Australian zone commissioner for ATSIC, stated that the act needed to be 'reviewed properly and comprehensively'. Again, the wishes of the community fell on deaf ears here in South Australia. We finally had a breakthrough in November 2008, when the state government announced a review of the act. Unfortunately this review was a pretty tortuous consultation, and it was not until 17 December 2012 that the government released draft legislation for public consultation and comment.

The current 1966 act really is in urgent need for an overview, and it has remained in that state for an extended period of time. It does not set out clear objects or purposes like modern legislation used in this parliament, it does not give the trust itself clear functions, it requires the trust to get ministerial permission for any dealings with the lands they own, it does not take into account the more recent regulatory requirements for good land management, and it does not allow the lands to be used or the full economic potential of the lands realised, and the communities upon them.

That is why it has been necessary for this update, and I think the revision that has been brought to this house is a good one. Of course, this does not in any way obviate the need for the government of the day to provide ongoing review of the legislation to ensure that a piece of legislation in this parliament does not fall into the state of the current act, which is well out of date. The new act:

enables the trust to acquire, hold and deal with trust land for the benefit of Aboriginal South Australians;

allows for the efficient and effective management and development of trust land;

provides a legislated consultation for people with interests in the land before any proposed changes to that land;

provides for the removal of the requirement for ministerial approval on land transfers;

importantly, provides for the potential creation of a commercial development advisory committee to provide advice to the trust and to the minister on commercial transactions; and

finally, provides for increased opportunities for economic development of trust land.

There has been a somewhat slow consultation. Some people have raised concerns with the Liberal opposition about elements of the consultation and indeed elements of the final bill, but we are going to certainly be supporting this as a necessary reform.

Can I just put on the record my appreciation in working with the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. This government has not given the necessary focus on this area that they should; we have had four separate minister in four years, often really not providing leadership in this important areas. But, can I say that this is a very difficult, complex area of government, and I think that progress is best achieved when we can work in a bipartisan way. The current minister has worked effectively with the opposition since he was appointed in January this year.

When he was appointed to this role, I immediately wrote to him in my capacity as the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation and suggested we should work on a minimum of four topics to achieve before the 2014 general election, and this was certainly one of the topics that I put on that list. I was delighted when the minister said that it was certainly on his agenda to achieve and effect a change to the legislation before the 2014 general election, and I think that we have worked extremely well over that period of time. I hope that the precedent that we have set—the government and the opposition working together on important reforms in this area—will continue for many years to come.

As I said, I think it is a complicated area. It is often one step forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back, one step forward, two steps back; it is often a pretty tortuous area. But, the best chance we have in addressing a range of disadvantages that exist or the increasing gap that exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians is going to be reached with both major parties working together in a bipartisan way.

I commend the work of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and all members, including our Liberal representative on that committee, the Hon. Terry Stephens, and of course the Greens representative on that committee, the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has been probably the one constant on that committee for the past four years, with Terry Stephens, the Liberal representative. It is an important standing committee of the parliament. I think that it would benefit the considerations of that committee if there was not a constant musical chairs of representatives on that committee. It does important work; this is one example of it here today. It has taken too long, but it is here and it is with great pleasure that I endorse the bill before the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:48): I, too, rise to support the Aboriginal Lands Trust Bill 2013, and it is a pleasure to follow both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Morphett, who, like all other opposition members of parliament support this bill and take these matters extremely seriously, but certainly those two people in this chamber are probably the ones who have led from the front from our team's position. I compliment both of them on that. I also happily recognise the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Ms Khatija Thomas, in the chamber today, who is also a constant in terms of working towards improved circumstances on Aboriginal engagement and a broader range of Aboriginal issues as well.

This bill has come together with exceptionally good intentions. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and I was very pleased to be fortunate enough to be with minister Hunter in Port Augusta to get a fairly brief and short but genuine overview of the bill. I had actually invited minister Hunter to come to Port Augusta to visit Wami Kata aged care home in Port Augusta, which is an aged care home specifically for Aboriginal people. It is for Aboriginal people from all over the place, not just Port Augusta, so there is a very wide range of backgrounds that people come from there.

He was good enough to come. I wanted him to see firsthand what an important job and what an important service Wami Kata provides at Port Augusta on Davenport land. When he was going through the intent of the bill before it had been tabled, I thought that is good and I was very grateful to see a minister so keen to work on the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee, and that certainly has not changed.

I think anybody should get to use their land, within the responsible constraints of legality, responsibility, ethical concerns, caring for the environment and all the normal things that are pretty straightforward, anyone should get to use their land to the best advantage of the landholder and the broader community, and that is no different for Aboriginal people than any other people. So, I think the freeing up of that and, essentially, creating opportunities through this bill goes without saying, it is common sense. Certainly, that has been thwarted by the legislation and prescriptions that exist.

I was also very pleased to get a more structured formal briefing in my office from the minister's staff. Ms Nerida Saunders also participated in that day, and it was fantastic to get a more detailed understanding of how it works. The desire to enable ALT to use the land more flexibly for the advantage of Aboriginal people is a very important principle. Certainly, that land is already held by ALT for Aboriginal people and for their benefit, as it should be, but the freeing up of flexibility for them to be able to do that is very important.

I have some real world type concerns about how that might flow on, but it does not slow me down in my support for this bill at all. You have to do these things sometimes a step at a time and it is not always possible to predict some future hurdles. Some of my concerns may prove to be true but some of them may prove not to be founded as well, so I am very supportive of taking this step forward. Where I have some concerns is about the real world practical implementation of what is in this bill: how would some of the commercial agreements actually be reached for the use of the land?

If it is a piece of property in the Adelaide CBD it is most likely that that land is already being used for some very constructive purpose, but if some commercial agreement wants to be entered into it may well be with a non-Aboriginal group in a very straightforward commercial way and presumably including some rent which goes back to the ALT and Aboriginal people. So, it is pretty straightforward. If it is also in the city, it is very likely that it might be to an Aboriginal group but far more likely to be an Aboriginal group that is a really structured Aboriginal group and they want that land for commercial purposes. So, again, I think it would be much easier to come up with a commercial arrangement to deal with the land which will advantage the owners of the land, the holders of the land.

The further away you go from the CBD I think the more difficult it is going to be to reach these sorts of agreements. We have land at the moment that is already held in trust for the benefit of Aboriginal people. So, if that land, as it most often is, is way outside of the city—it could be on the Murray, it could be on the Lower Lakes, it could be in the outback—it certainly will not be only Aboriginal people who would like to use that land, but it is very likely—and the further away you go from the CBD the more likely—that it will be Aboriginal people who would like to use that land.

So, they would like to be on the other side of this commercial arrangement, and the commercial arrangement that we are establishing is essentially so that the lessor or the licensor, or whatever form the commercial arrangement might take, is the beneficiary and that the benefit is passed onto Aboriginal people. The lessee or the licensee (or whoever the person on the other side might be) is going to think, 'But this is actually already my land. Why would I pay rent to access this land for the productive commercial purpose that I would like to put it to?'

To make up an example, it might be an Aboriginal person, an Aboriginal family, an Aboriginal corporation that wants to lease a station or lease some land, perhaps for pastoral activities, cultural activities or tourism activities, or whatever is appropriate an appropriate use of the land, but that piece of land is held by ALT in trust for Aboriginal people. That piece of land that is a long way from Adelaide is already very likely to have some Aboriginal custodial ownership that goes with it, even if not technically defined. It is likely to be the case in the minds of the people who live and come from that area, and so they would say, 'Yes, please. I would like to lease this land or get some access so that I can run my business so that my corporation or my family or myself or whoever can get a really good business opportunity,' and I think this is where the real strength of this is.

Local people can enter into a business opportunity that advantages local people, but ALT can also enter into the commercial arrangement that benefits the Aboriginal people that ALT represents more broadly. But when ALT says hypothetically, 'Okay, we will lease you this land for your business venture and we want X dollars in rent,' the person who lives and works and wants to create a business on that land says, 'But why do I want to pay the rent? It is already held essentially for me and my people.' I suspect that is what is going to go through that person's mind, 'Why would I have to pay to access it from ALT when ALT actually holds it for me or for us?' I think trying to get around that in a real world commercial way is going to be challenging. I do not say it is impossible, and it is certainly not a reason not to support this bill. This bill pushes us down that path and opens the door for access for Aboriginal people to realise a commercial benefit from the land.

Sometimes the only way to deal with a challenge, a conflicting issue or a difficult issue is just to take a step forward and deal with it. I am very hopeful that that is exactly what will happen but I do think that is going to be a challenge for people. If the person says, 'I don't want to pay rent. It is essentially mine (or ours) already,' then you have not actually freed up any income from the land and you have not actually created a commercial benefit that flows back to the trust that then flows on to the Aboriginal people for whom the trust holds the land. That is something I think we will probably all be dealing with in this place down the track. I am sure that we will deal with it in a bipartisan way.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, he has worked very openly, productively and cooperatively with minister Hunter. I have to say that my involvement with minister Hunter, whether it be on a local electorate issue that is tied up with any one of his portfolios, has been a very open, productive working relationship. I hold him in high regard as a person. I do not mind saying I hope he is not the minister next year, and I know that he would not mind me saying that. He certainly worked very well towards this and I am sure whoever the minister is will do it in a bipartisan way, whether they are a Liberal or Labor minister.

I would also like to share with the house a suggestion that has been put to me by Aboriginal people in my electorate which I think has some merit, and that is that land held by ALT for which formal native title has already been declared under this act could and should be transferred to the prescribed body corporate that already holds that declared native title. To me, that seems pretty logical. Regardless of who it is or what part of the state it might be—as I said, it could be the Murray, the Lower Lakes, the outback or anywhere. Where native title has been declared—not where it is being discussed, claimed or negotiated but where it has already been declared—those native title rights have essentially been given to a prescribed body corporate in the vein of ALT holding that land for Aboriginal people and presumably holding land in a local area for local Aboriginal people where those local Aboriginal people have already been given a legal native title right over that land, so why not have the corporation which holds the right hold the land in exactly the same way as ALT currently does?

I throw that open as another thing to think about down the track. It is not going to be dealt with here. It is too late for it to be dealt with here. Regardless of what anybody in this house might suggest, this bill will go through this lower house on the numbers with the government and I am very comfortable with that, because the steps that are being taken are all positive ones. However, to me, there is a great logic in that suggestion.

It is my understanding that in the electorate of Stuart that would certainly involve the Adnamatna people and also the Arabunna people, but I do not propose that for my electorate only. I propose it as a logical way of giving the best possible way of guaranteeing that the local Aboriginal people for whom ALT currently hold the land would be the beneficiaries of the commercial benefits that we all hope would flow from that land to Aboriginal people through this bill.

There are a couple of things to think about. There is more work to do. As both the member for Morphett and the Leader of the Opposition said, this has been a slow process. It has been too slow a process for us to get to this stage, but I hope that progress from now on will be much swifter. I am confident that progress can be made in a bipartisan way, with members of parliament working together and taking advice from people outside of this chamber, who usually know far more than we do about the specifics of these sorts of issues. This can mean that progress can come far more quickly in the future in terms of making even more improvements than has been the case in the past, in the past in terms of us getting to this stage. I wholeheartedly support the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 54 passed.

Clause 55.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I move:

That clause 55, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Clause inserted.

Clauses 56 to 60 passed.

Clause 61.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I move:

That clause 61, which is printed in erased type, be inserted in the bill.

Clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (62 to 69), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (17:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to thank honourable members for their careful consideration of, and general support for, this important reform measure. This bill provides for the continuation of the Aboriginal Lands Trust, but ensures that it can operate as a modern statutory body recognising the scope of legal and societal change in South Australia since the commencement of the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act in 1966.

This bill will empower Aboriginal South Australians as the beneficiaries, protectors and custodians of trust land. The bill recognises the multiplicity of cultural, historical and community interests in trust land. It seeks to ensure that the trust is a decision-making structure that will bring balance and equity to the management of these interests, and as a landholding body it can be the vehicle for furthering and optimising these interests for the benefit of all. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:05): It is a delight that this bill has actually got to this stage. During my second reading contribution I was on the understanding that the Leader of the Opposition was unable to get to the house. Can I say how even more delightful than having this bill pass is that the Leader of the Opposition was able to come into the house and make a personal contribution, because I know it has meant a lot to him.

Bill read a third time and passed.