HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ANANGU PITJANTJATJARA YANKUNYTJATJARA LAND RIGHTS (MINTABIE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November 2009. Page 4718.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:05): I will continue my remarks, which I started on 17 November in this place, and reiterate the fact that the Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill. During the conclusion of my speech I will put on the record a number of issues that have been put to me. My colleagues have reached their conclusions about this evidence and evidence they have obtained themselves, and they have decided, as I say, not to support the bill.

I was reading from a piece put together by Jonathan Nicholls from UnitingCare Wesley on the Paper Tracker website. As I said then, and I repeat now, Jonathan Nicholls is a very experienced operator in Aboriginal affairs. He is an honest operator. The information that he has put on the web for everyone around the world to read about Mintabie is, as far as I am able to determine (and I trust Jonathan), accurate. The first part of what I said outlined some of the concerns. I will continue reading from this article:

Drugs and alcohol continue to enter the APY lands through Mintabie. In August 2007, South Australia Police arrested and charged two men at Mintabie for their alleged involvement in a 'cannabis selling network'. In April 2008, the Mullighan Inquiry into child sexual abuse on the APY Lands noted South Australia Police's concern that Mintabie was 'being used as a staging post for the trafficking of marijuana on the Lands.'

The Mintabie stores have been an issue for quite a while, and I will read some more recent information shortly about the concerns around the operation of the Mintabie stores. The article continues:

For many years Mintabie's general stores and businesses have seriously impacted on Anangu well-being and on the viability of the stores in Anangu communities. In 2002, Iwantja community described this impact as follows:

'the biggest impediment to local Anangu is the Mintabie Mining Site and associated businesses operated there. The sale of poor quality cars without correct papers and warranty by unlicensed dealers is carried out on a daily basis...The stores that operate allow Anangu people to enter into a book-up arrangement, for large debts, then accept their bank key cards and pin numbers as security. They then use these key cards to remove the required payment themselves on a fortnightly basis, with little or no account keeping records...in some cases these same key cards have been used interstate for deductions by the store operators or their families.'

In March 2007, the Office for Consumer and Business Affairs (OCBA) reported on its recent examination of four Mintabie stores. OCBA noted that one store was selling between 300 and 350 second-hand cars per year, held 60 key cards and associated pin numbers and was allowing Anangu—some of whom lived more than 500km away -to enter into book-up arrangements.

In another store, 30 key cards and pin numbers were being held and the average amount of book-up was $1,000. In a third store, OCBA found that prices were only displayed on half the items, goods were not properly weighed, and out-of-date items were being sold without the proper notification. In that store, customers were charged a 5% levy on any cash withdrawals and $5 ever time they bought something on book-up. At a fourth store—whose Anangu client base stretched from Yalata to Docker River in the Northern Territory—95% of its business came from the direct debit of customers' Centrelink payments.

Again, such arrangements and irregularities are nothing new. Back in 1994, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs reported that 'two shopkeepers from Mintabie' had been 'prosecuted...for dealing in motor vehicles without a licence'. Both men, who 'dealt mainly with local Aboriginal residents...were found to have been buying vehicles in the southern capital cities and transporting them to Mintabie where they would be displayed at the rear of their shops and sold'. Neither of the men 'provided their customers with proper warranties on the cars and in some cases actually charged their customers for doing repairs when the cars were returned with faults'. The Commissioner noted that the counsel prosecuting the case had described the vehicles sold at Mintabie as 'bombs' and that the judge had 'stated that cases such as these were far too prevalent'.

Mintabie is not what it used to be. Mintabie was a thriving precious stones mining field but it has declined over the years. The article continues:

The size and character of Mintabie have changed considerably since the original lease was granted in 1981. Back then it was a relatively new and rapidly expanding opal mining field. This is no longer the case.

Throughout the 1980s, the population of the township steadily climbed. By the late 1980s, well in excess of 1,000 people lived there. Since then, the population has declined.

The 2001 census counted 208 people at Mintabie, of whom 173 were staying in their usual place of residence. By the time of the 2006 census, there were only 122 people, of whom 112 were staying in their usual place of residence.

School enrolment numbers confirm Mintabie's decline. In 1988, 59 students were enrolled at the local school. In 2002, this number had fallen to 36. By 2008, 14 students were enrolled at this combined primary/secondary school. In 2009, there were only 11 enrolments.

Accompanying this population decline has been a significant change in Mintabie's economic base. Whereas in the 1980s the primary commercial activity at Mintabie was opal mining, today many of the town's most successful businesses rely heavily on commercial transactions with Anangu. In 2004, the Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA reported that there were 10 businesses operating at Mintabie, including five general stores and/or second-hand car dealers.

As Mintabie's mining fortunes have faded and fallen, business transactions with Anangu have kept the place alive economically. However, this development has reduced the growth and viability of Anangu's own stores and been a significant drain on the overall economy of the APY lands.

As I have said before in this speech, the land at Mintabie is leased by the people of the APY to the state government, which then gives permits to occupy and conduct businesses on the land. The lease was a 21 year lease and expired in 2002 and has continued on an ad hoc basis since then. The article continues:

Section 28(1) of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 leased Mintabie to the Crown 'for a term of twenty-one years commencing on the date of commencement of this act'. The original lease expired on 2 October 2002. For more than nine years, Anangu have been negotiating with the SA government and interested parties over the conditions under which it would be prepared to enter into a new lease arrangement.

Those negotiations are continuing. The article continues:

...the determining factor in these negotiations is not monetary gain (from lease and licence payments) but the need to eradicate the serious, negative effects Mintabie has on their lives and their communities.

On 21 February 2007, APY held a Special General Meeting to discuss the conditions under which it might enter into a new lease arrangement. At the meeting, Anangu decided that any new lease arrangement must:

restrict the way that alcohol can been sold at Mintabie,

prohibit the selling of second-hand cars at Mintabie,

prohibit the holding of ATM/keycards by store keepers,

end the system of book-up operating in the stores, and

require Mintabie residents to complete a police check as part of the process of obtaining a licence to work on the Mintabie Precious Stones Field.

At the same meeting, South Australia Police highlighted their concern at 'the amount of grog and drugs coming out of Mintabie' and urged APY to make sure its decision provided the police with 'strong powers to deal with people who do these things'.

In August 2007, the state government provided Anangu with an update on the Mintabie lease negotiations. It reported that it was preparing a 25-year lease under which:

stores would be prohibited from selling second-hand cars and the book-up system would be phased out,

police checks would be incorporated into the application for Mintabie licences, and

at Mintabie, people would only be able to consume alcohol at the local hotel or at specially licensed functions.

So these changes that we are looking at today are not new: in August 2007 the state government was proposing these changes. There has been plenty of time for people to look at them and seek amendments or some conciliation if they felt so strongly about them. The article continues:

The government indicated that these changes would require amendments to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 and that it anticipated being ready to present draft amendments to Anangu within two months.

That was in 2007, and here we are today, in the last sitting week of 2009, still debating this bill.

In July 2008, Ms Alison Anderson, the member for McDonald in the Northern Territory parliament, attended a funeral at Amata. In the course of her visit she observed 'four young people sniffing petrol at a house in the community'. The main resident of the house informed Ms Anderson that 'the premium unleaded fuel had come from Mintabie opal field and was selling for $70 a soft drink bottle'. The Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council subsequently raised the matter with the South Australian Crown Solicitor's Office. In a reply dated 29 July 2008, the office advised the NPY Women's Council that premium unleaded petrol was sold in Mintabie in containers for use in power generators. The reply continued:

While I am assured by relevant people at Mintabie that sale to Anangu does not occur at fuel outlets, having the fuel available in containers increases the likelihood of illegal sale to Anangu.

On 29 July 2008, the Crown Solicitor's Office also noted that the negotiations were 'nearly finalised for the new Mintabie lease'. That was some 18 months ago, and here we are today debating this bill and we see that the lease has not yet been signed. The Paper Tracker piece finishes off by stating:

Recent developments (updated 24 September 2009)

On 26 June 2009, the State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (Hon. Jay Weatherill MP) reported that his Government was 'determined to press ahead' with some amendments to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981, including the 'remaking of the lease in relation to the Mintabie part of the APY lands'. The Minister noted that the proposed amendments would include a 'toughening' of alcohol restrictions and 'some tightening up' of credit arrangements, and commented: 'These [amendments] are welcomed by the Anangu APY Executive but are not so welcomed by some of the residents of Mintabie.'

And don't we see that. The latest information that Mr Nicholls has sent to all members of both sides of the house, I think (and if not I am happy to make it available to members on both sides), reiterates that Mintabie is a source for alcohol and drugs and has been for many years now. The Mintabie stores and second-hand car dealers have been a problem just recently. In Mr Nicholls' outline, since 1994 the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs reported that two shopkeepers from Mintabie had been prosecuted for dealing in motor cars. In subsequent reports, one store was selling between 300 and 350 cars a year. That has to stop. It cannot be allowed to continue.

With respect to the declining community, as I said previously, the school now has 11 kids and the total population of the town is about 122, according to the 2006 census. I would like to know what it is today, because I think that there certainly are—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: It's 80, I think.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The minister has just informed me that it is about 80 now. It is a community in decline. The member for Giles, I think, said there might have been 93. So, it is less than 100, and it is certainly an issue that the economy of this small community is dominated not by precious stones but by the sale of goods to the Anangu.

I have also received a copy of a letter from the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council dated 16 November. In response to the proposed amendments, the women's council said:

The Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council (NPYWC/NPY Women's Council) represents women in the remote tri-State area of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. The region covers 350,000 square kilometres. There is an overall population of around 6,000. Anangu and Yarnangu...living on the Ngaanyatjarra, Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara lands (Western Desert language region) who share strong cultural and family affiliations...The push for a separate women's forum emerged through the South Australian Pitjantjatjara Land Rights struggle of the late 1970s. Many women felt that their views were ignored during consultations over land rights, so they established their own organisation. Advocacy and information dissemination were the main foci for NPYWC during the 1980s and early 1990s. NPYWC is now a major provider of human services, working to address the identified unmet needs of Anangu and Yarnangu women and their families.

The organisation's position remains that there should be no further lease granted over the Mintabie opal mining area, in keeping with expressed preference of Anangu when the original lease was granted, and in view of the well documented social, health and financial damage caused over the years to Anangu through reprehensible activities of legal and illegal traders who reside in this 'shanty town' on Aboriginal land.

As the minister noted in his second reading speech of 23 September, the opal mining has declined, the population is just 100 to 150—

we have just heard it is now less than that—

and the commercial activity of the four shops and the second-hand motor dealer are mainly with Anangu, and have been less than satisfactory.

The letter continues to express deep concerns about the continued activities and existence of Mintabie. They raise the issue of supply of illicit and/or intoxicating substances from the Mintabie opal field. The women are very concerned about the damage that has been done to 6,000 Anangu they represent by the activities at Mintabie. Mintabie is not the only way in which drugs and alcohol are getting into the APY lands, but I said to my colleagues that it is like having a paddock with 12 gates; if you were to shut one gate you would improve things and then there are only 11 other gates to look after. That is my opinion and certainly the opinion of the NPYWC. They are very concerned about the activities at Mintabie and this letter, which has been circulated, expresses those concerns.

The evidence that has been presented not only to this house but also to the Senate is interesting to read and put on the record. In October 2008 the Senate was inquiring into some of the activities in Aboriginal communities, mainly concerning petrol sniffing. On 29 October 2008 representatives of the NPY council gave evidence in Adelaide. Ms Vicki Gillick, who is the coordinator of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council, gave evidence. She said:

Yesterday we had quite a long discussion about this [petrol sniffing and what is happening with some of the retailers around the place] at women's council. A few years ago you could go to any community in our region and you would see people with their shirts up and cans under their noses. Apart from the outbreak that happened recently at Warburton, with fuel getting in from places like Mintabie, it is very different from what it was. However, we do not want that window opened again.

They were concerned back then about Mintabie being a source of petrol being sold to Anangu. Mrs Inyika gave evidence and, as part of her evidence, she said:

But what we are thinking is that there is one place that is no good. That place is making our people go silly and is making our children skinny. All our communities have good petrol—OPAL fuel—but one place is making problems for all the communities and that place is called Mintabie. That is the only place that is destroying our communities.

They wanted Opal fuel to be sold at Mintabie. In further evidence to the Senate inquiry in October 2008, Ms Gillick said:

The women's council position is that they should not have another lease because Mintabie is a well-known and renowned source of cannabis, sly-grogging and now premium fuel.

The Mintabie Miners Progress Association states that only a few people are doing that, but the damage that has been caused and the money that has been obtained in the region over the years is enormous. Huge keycard trading issues have been revealed by the Book Up Reference Group and so on…we are told that cannabis makes its from way from Mintabie to Warburton and other parts of the Ngaanyatjarra lands…Not much opal—

she is talking about the precious stone—

is left there, so people's keycards and pockets are mined instead.

I do not think you will find any women's council members with a good word to say about Mintabie. There might be a few. There are second-hand clothing stores and people get into that a bit, but recently it was described at a general meeting as a 24 hour a day, seven day a week, shopping centre for marijuana.

That evidence was given to the Senate committee last year, and just a few weeks ago at a federal ministerial inquiry into stores in remote Aboriginal communities there was a submission from Nganampa Health Council. Nganampa Health is based in Alice Springs but it has a main office at Umuwa on the APY lands. In its evidence to the ministerial inquiry, it said:

Of serious concern is the decline in store turnover across the lands. This is attributed to the credit system available at Mintabie and another private store trading on the APY lands...It has been estimated that around $4 million per year leaks out of the Anangu economy and into the business at Mintabie...The APY Land Council has included compliance with a Mai Wiru policy by the Mintabie traders as a precondition for APY agreeing to any renewal of Mintabie mining leases.

So, even Nganampa Health at Umuwa is expressing to the federal government its concerns about the stores at Mintabie.

The Mai Wiru policy is a good food policy that has been put in place across the lands, and it has been working for a number of years. In my travels across the lands, I have seen significant changes to the quality of food in the stores. We are not seeing all the full strength Coke; we are seeing a lot more Coke Zero and Diet Coke, which is all contributing—in a small way, perhaps—to better health outcomes. There is a long way to go. The evidence given to the ministerial inquiry certainly will continue to progress those issues, because good nutrition is a vital part of good health.

The miners and the Mintabie Miners Progress Association have raised a number of concerns. I said to them, 'If there are only a few people doing these bad things, why don't you dob them in to the police and get rid of them?' They really had no answer to that, but I would encourage them to dob in those people who do the wrong thing to make sure that things progress.

There has been a concern that this legislation is removing human rights. In an email I received from one of the residents, who I assume is from the APY lands and living at Mintabie, it states:

The legislation has the potential to erode the civil rights of every Australian. Forbidding Mintabie residents the right to drink at home, this state legislation will also cause the presumption of guilt before enforcing every visitor and resident to undergo compulsory police checks. And this state legislation will add extra layers of bureaucracy...for nomads, tourists, rock-hounds and adventurers, all visitors who may be refused entry into the Mintabie Precious Stones Field in future.

We have always had to have a permit to enter the precious stones field at Mintabie. It was part of the original act and always has been.

The claim, though, that this piece of legislation is going to impinge on people's civil rights is just an absolute furphy. I will read from part of a letter that I received from one of the legal advisers to the APY, when we were seeking some answers to this claim about the erosion of civil rights. It states:

Duncan,

The APY Lands Rights Act is in fact a discrimination against non-Anangu. It has been upheld as a valid state law by the High Court in 1985 only because it is a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act for the purpose of enabling the Anangu to rebuild their culture and its connection with the land.

I wanted a bit more evidence on that and, not being a lawyer, I asked for some evidence to show me that this was a special measure and that it was not discriminating against the people of Mintabie. So, I have been sent a copy, and there are probably 100-plus pages here. I am not going to read all of it, but I will read part of the summary of a court case from 1985 concerning the Racial Discrimination Act and whether the state act was actually valid. Part of the summary states:

A 'human right or fundamental freedom' in s.9 and a 'right' in s.10 included by the incorporation of Art. 5(d)(i) of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 'the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State'. By force of s.8(1), ss. 9 and 10 did not apply to 'special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms...'.

The Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (S.A.) vested the title to a large tract of land in the north-west of South Australia, comprising more than one-tenth of the land area of the State, in the Anangu Pitjantjatjaraku, a body corporate, comprising all Pitjantjatjara and some other groups of Aboriginal people. Section 18 provided that 'All Pitjantjatjaras have unrestricted rights of access to the lands.' Section 19 prohibited any non-Pitjantjatjara person from entering the lands without permission.

The court held that the state act was a 'special measure' within section 8(1) of the commonwealth act and, accordingly, section 19 of the state act was a valid law of the Parliament of South Australia.

So, this legislation is not an infringement of the human rights of the people Mintabie. The fact is that this is a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act and upheld by the High Court in 1985, when it was challenged. I am no lawyer, but it appears to be an open and shut case that this legislation cannot be challenged on those grounds.

The big issue at the moment is that the lease is still to be negotiated at Mintabie. As recently as this morning, I spoke to people on the APY lands about the progress, or lack of it, with the lease. It seems to be going backwards and forwards like a ping-pong ball. At the beginning of my contribution, I quoted the Premier as saying that Aboriginal affairs is like taking three steps forwards and two steps back: there is some movement, but it is slowly, slowly.

The concern raised with me this morning was the fact that, should this legislation not be progressed, a number of people on the APY lands—not just the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council—and a number of traditional owners are dead set against even giving a lease to the people at Mintabie.

I do not want to see this happen, and I certainly do not want those living in and enjoying their unique lifestyle at Mintabie to be evicted. As a Liberal, I uphold the rights of the property owner—and let us never forget that the APY people own that land. They are not tenants on Aboriginal Lands Trust land; they are the owners of that land. They own it in inalienable freehold title: they cannot sell it and they cannot do anything else with it, other than sublease it under special conditions.

What is happening at Mintabie is that the lease that was initially granted in 1981, and expired in 2002, has outlived its purpose and needs to be renegotiated. I have a copy of the draft lease, which contains sections that address permits and the fact that there is a liaison committee. I understand that the committee has not met for quite a while, but the draft lease proposes that it be maintained and improved.

The liaison committee comprises three Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara people, two from the Mintabie Mining Progress Association and two representatives from the state, including one from PIRSA, and let us not forget that this lease is to the state government through PIRSA. The lease will be reviewed every five years.

Clauses 32, 33 and 34 of the draft lease talk about how the shops will be required to comply with APY Mai Wiru policy to the extent set out in the licences, and consultation will occur with APY on shop licences about this. Shops and other commercial premises will be required to comply with credit and other conditions related to book-up or other matters set out in the licence.

As to second-hand cars in clause 33, no commercial sale of cars is permitted in Mintabie, and clause 34 provides that, in relation to the hotel licence, only the current licence will continue. No additional licences will be granted unless agreed to by APY. Operations of the hotel are subject to APY by-laws.

The APY Executive and the traditional owners are very keen to advance the conditions on the lands, including Mintabie, by the use of by-laws. In the APY act there is the ability to make by-laws, and the range of subjects that can come in under the by-laws are determined by regulation. My information is that the traditional owners, the APY communities and the APY executive are all looking to change their by-laws. They need regulation to allow them to introduce by-laws, particularly with the stores, the good food stores policy, and that needs to happen. This is not to eliminate Mintabie as a form of competition; this is not about shutting Mintabie stores down. It is just making them conduct themselves in exactly the same way as all the other stores on the APY lands are being asked to do at the moment. That is a necessary step forward, because if we do not do that the condition and nutritional status of many of those communities will continue to leave a lot to be desired.

The other thing that the APY community are very keen to do is to have the power, under their by-laws, to change the permit system. I know that a bill has been introduced into this place about the permit system, but we will step back a bit from that. The APY wants to be able to have the ability to make by-laws to control the permit system. They have already expanded the use of permits there.

There is some opinion out there that they are being obstructive, that they are being restrictive in the way they deal with permit system. The evidence that has been given to me is that there have been a few occasions where people have been refused permits or there have been delays in granting permits for what I consider to be fairly genuine and just reasons. What is happening now is that the APY are wanting to get control of the permit system.

Let's not forget that the by-laws that will be made by the APY would have to come before this place and be approved by the Executive Council and the Governor, so we are not losing control of what is going on up there, we are just acting as an oversight, a review of what is going on up there. The APY want to introduce these by-laws to really open up the lands.

One person told me that they would love to get rid of the permit system completely, but they realise that that will take a while. That is the sort of thing they want to do with these by-laws. They want to free up access for people who want to come to the lands for good purposes, not just for people who want to be voyeurs and go up there and look at the bad things. There are indeed a lot of challenges there, but some of the most beautiful country in this state is in those APY lands, and, at the moment, some people think it is locked away. I and other members of this place, particularly through the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, have had the opportunity to travel to those lands to see what is magnificent country.

These people are very proud of their country. They have a long history, thousands and thousands of years of history, and they want to make sure that their country is not abused by people who are coming in for purely commercial purposes or other negative purposes. They do want some control. It is their land, they own it freehold. They want the right to be able to make by-laws to control entry through the permit system, and I do not think this place should be getting in the way of them doing that.

As I said, we can look at it again, we can control it if we really need to, but forcing Aboriginal people to do things has never ever worked. Giving them money and then forcing them to do things has not worked. We need to allow them to be given the opportunity and support to make their decisions. Certainly, if those decisions look like they need some further support, then we should be doing that as well.

This particular bill allows people to take some control of one part of the problems that they face in getting their communities to the standard that we would expect and what they would expect as well. Their standards are exceptionally high. Their community organisations, their caring for community, caring for country, is very high, but we need to give them the opportunity to do that.

I realise that there are members, particularly on this side of the house and possibly in the other place, who do have concerns about the way this bill will operate. They do have concerns about the way the police have been unable to get control of the situation. They do have concerns that the stores at Mintabie will somehow be disadvantaged. I do not believe that that is the case. I do not believe that the stores there have been operating in a manner that deserves to have the extra consideration.

I think if they could have shown themselves to be responsible store owners and responsible citizens, we would not be doing this today; and if people were not selling alcohol and drugs there, we probably would not be doing this today either and the lease would have been rewritten. The people at Mintabie who are opposing this bill, the people who claim to be whiter than white, should be dobbing in the people who are causing the issues. We should not have to be debating this.

The huge risk we run if we are not able to come up with some compromise on the way this legislation will work and give people on the APY lands (who own that land freehold) the comfort that we are doing the right thing by them is that the lease may not be granted. I would not like to be a politician in the state of South Australia, with our proud history of Aboriginal land rights, saying that we should be taking that land back off them. That should not even be considered, and certainly I hope that no-one in this place would be thinking anything like that. If that were the case, I think it would be a sad day for South Australia.

Having said that, I realise my colleagues on this side have concerns about the bill and the Liberal Party will not be supporting it. I will continue to look for improvements on Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal lands where I possibly can in this place. I will be interested to watch the passage of the bill through the upper house. I will certainly continue my dialogue with the people on the APY lands to ensure that everyone on the APY lands, whether they are Anangu or non-Anangu, but particularly at Mintabie, do receive what is a reasonable outcome for their life, knowing that they should be going into the future with their eyes wide open.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:41): On 2 October 1980, Mr Pantju Thompson on behalf of the Pitjantjatjara council and the Hon. David Tonkin (the then premier of South Australia) on behalf of the South Australian government signed a document indicating that a Pitjantjatjara land rights bill had been agreed between the parties and subsequently (that month) legislation was introduced. When it came to consideration of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Mintabie) Amendment Bill 2009, I looked back to that legislation, which is now known as the APY Land Rights Act 1981 as a result of the title being amended during the course of the debate. It was interesting to note who made a contribution to that debate. Obviously, Dr Tonkin as the then premier proudly introduced this bill and there was considerable contribution by members, including the member for Kavel's father (Hon. Roger Goldsworthy) who was deputy premier. He spoke at length on this bill. I will not revisit those contributions but they are instructive when we come to look at the origins of the legislation which we are being asked to amend.

For the purposes of this exercise, there was acknowledgment of the Mintabie opal field and the development of a proposed township on a Granite Downs property, part of which is the lease which is under consideration in this legislation. That is, an existing settlement and enterprise needed to be taken into account. It was, and that was included in the legislation. It was recognised at that time that, first, there would be the transfer of ownership of the land to the Anangu people; and, secondly, a lease would be issued through the minister of lands for 21 years. As the minister has explained to the house, that lease expired on 1 October 2002, and essentially, for the last seven years, there has been no resolution as to the terms of a further lease to be entered into between the relevant parties.

It is important to note, I think, that the relevant party here is the Mintabie Consultative Committee, which comprises a state APY and an MMPA representation, that is, the Mintabie Miners Progress Association, which, I understand, is a voluntary body of Mintabie residents. I will come back to the management that has been happening in the last nearly 30 years of this matter. However, I will say that, although it appears there has been a development towards a draft lease, there are a number of impediments to a final agreement to sign up.

Really, what we are being asked to do, I suggest, is more than just a legislative umbrella to facilitate the perpetuation of the lease. What we are being asked to do is to legislate a whole lot of conditions, some of which have not been agreed to between the relevant parties. Some are very meritorious on the face of it and some of them—I have never seen this new lease, but I understand that a draft is floating around—are to impose obligations which already exist on other parts of the APY lands. Some are significantly new but take into account the uniqueness of the Mintabie establishment. I think that is the best you can call it.

I can say that I have never been to Mintabie. I have never had any great desire to go to Mintabie. Many times I have visited the APY area. Indeed, in my earlier life in visits to Alice Springs I attended a number of occasions at Ernabella, as it was then known, in the 1970s. It is beautiful country. There has been much advance in its transfer to the Anangu people and the establishment of some autonomy in the management. I will say that I read with some concern the minister's advice to the house that the apparent management of Mintabie over the years has resulted in a whole lot of things not being attended to (or shabbily attended to at best), which has resulted in a significant number of dwellings being constructed without any development approval, it seems.

They may be substandard, I do not know, but they are not even in the area that is designated for occupation by the dwellings. There appears to be even the establishment of the town's waste dump outside the area that is zoned to be entitled to activity for Mintabie. There seems to be no progress, apparently, in identifying Aboriginal heritage areas to ensure that buildings and developments are not in culturally-sensitive areas, and the like. All those things concern me, and that, even with a lease, there at least seems to have been a complete failure on the part of a number of these aspects.

It seems even more concerning that there has been even a failure to enforce the permit requirements for visiting Mintabie and that that is simply more in the breach than the observance. All these things are very concerning, but the issue we are being asked to deal with today is to facilitate the re-establishment of the lease and to provide the legislative framework for that to occur. A number of issues have been raised to which, as I say, there seems to be impediments to final resolution. The minister advised us (and I want to repeat them) that the APY's chief concerns are:

alcohol and other drugs (mainly cannabis) entering the broader APY lands through Mintabie;

the operation of a second-hand motor vehicle dealer at Mintabie. There have been allegations that vehicles bought by Anangu soon break down, which is contributing to financial hardship because they are often purchased on credit;

credit or book-up practices and the retention of Anangu Bank key cards at Mintabie shopkeepers, which is seen as contributing to financial hardship and is in conflict with the APY Mai Wiru stores' policy [that is a provision for good, healthy food]; and

the sale of pornography to Anangu at Mintabie.

The minister also advised that SAPOL and the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs (which has investigated trading practices at Mintabie) had confirmed many of those concerns and that, consequent upon these issues being raised (and, I repeat, summarised by the minister's contribution), they had advised how they would deal with it. The conditions to be met were that there would be a change in alcohol consumption on the lands. Currently, people can buy alcohol at the Mintabie Hotel and locals can consume alcohol in their own home. There will be a restriction to that being at a hotel or at an approved licensed premises, etc. There is a long list. I do not need to repeat those; they have been canvassed by others.

Let us then consider the situation. When we received a briefing on this matter on the question of alcohol and drugs one of the things that was raised was that there is an abuse of substances on the lands and that the culprit in providing the availability of this was some person or persons in Mintabie; or, at the very least, that Mintabie was the place where transactions were occurring for access to prohibited substances and alcohol.

Also, concerns were raised about petrol because, in the times prior to the introduction of Opal fuel in a number of Aboriginal communities, petrol, of course, was a significant source for what is otherwise known as petrol sniffing—and we all know the dangers of that. First, a briefing was provided to us by the government, and the two things that stuck in my mind about the briefing in respect of the access to substances and alcohol and petrol were statements made by the police and, secondly, the Mullighan inquiry. The Mullighan inquiry, for the purposes of those who ever read this debate, was an inquiry into children who were victims of sexual abuse on the APY lands; and it was secondary to a more expansive inquiry that he undertook.

I tried to find some record or some indication in the Mullighan report of this concern. I tell the house that there is no recommendation in respect of this. I half expect that this is because his charter in the terms of reference was not to deal with substance abuse on the lands; his charter was to deal with the vulnerability of children to sexual exploitation and abuse. Therefore, that did not surprise me.

What did surprise me is that I cannot find anything in the report that confirms that the vulnerability of the children in this instance is a result of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs that have been obtained via Mintabie. Certainly, there are issues raised about the vulnerability of children, particularly teenage girls, being asked to exchange sexual favours for the purposes of obtaining alcohol or a substance of abuse, either for themselves or in the expectation that they will be provided for others. These are very concerning issues. So I turned then to the notes that I had made in relation to the claim that the police were concerned about this; and that seems to be frustrated, I suppose, by the fact that no information has ever been provided to us to confirm that.

However, I did note, in more recent times, that there are a lot of statements about what is happening, including from the minister, but not a lot to go with them. I read a number of reports in this parliament (including by the minister) in respect of the success in the reduction of petrol sniffing in the APY area and, indeed, in other facilities of a similar governance. The minister reported to the parliament (in response to estimates questions on 26 June 2009) about the APY task force program. He reported that the rate of seizure of illegal substances, including alcohol, coming on the lands has increased dramatically since 2006. That is interesting, and I note that statement, but we have not had one scintilla of information to support it.

I do not doubt it is true, and I will tell members why. It is totally fanciful to me that the APY should be different from any other Aboriginal community on the lands where cannabis use is rife. We have arrested the problem with petrol sniffing by the replacement of petrol with Opal petrol and, largely, that has resolved a big problem. But a recent study by the James Cook University found that up to 70 per cent of people in remote indigenous communities were using marijuana, as well as some children as young as 13 years, and it gives some very difficult statistics. That is referred to in some research done in Queensland, but there was a statement made during the course of that media coverage that the use of marijuana has been spreading throughout central Australia, from the top north through to Aboriginal communities in South Australia's far north-west. The inquiry in relation to what was happening specifically in Queensland resulted in that statement being made about our own. So, I do not have any doubt. There is no reason why our community should be immune to the same dramas. What I need to be able to see, though, is some evidence of where it is coming from.

During the course of debate on this matter I was pleased to receive a briefing from both UnitingCare Wesley and the APY women's council—the Ngaanyatjarra, Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women's Council (Aboriginal Corporation). I refer to the submission of UnitingCare Wesley. I spoke to its author, the CEO, Sue Park. She confirmed that her submission was seeking our support for the bill but that she had not provided information on this. The submission was to try to arrest the negative impact of some of the businesses at Mintabie on the economic wellbeing of the rest of the area and an attempt to have an effect on the reduction of cannabis and other prohibited substances on APY lands. She told me this had all come from Jonathan Nicholls. I had not spoken to him, but she referred me to the information he provides via a service known as The Anangu Lands Paper Tracker, which I found to be quite an interesting website about current programs.

Regrettably, we did not find the evidence that we were looking for in that regard, so I looked to the women's council, who, let us face it, are the people who are on the ground dealing with the tragic outcomes as a result of any use or abuse of substances and alcohol. Theirs is a rather disturbing letter to read because, of course, they confirm the high level of violence and high level of abuse of aged persons, young children and women in the community; and they refer to the flood of cannabis onto the lands as a contributing factor to domestic and family violence, and poverty across the communities.

When I read their submission, again, I was looking for some evidence to support the notion that it was coming through Mintabie, but I think it is fair to say that, notwithstanding our lead speaker on this matter suggesting that there was a concern raised in other areas, in fact, their primary objective here was to highlight the poverty arising out of keycard use and also the question of second-hand motor vehicle use or abuse.

There are some pretty good arguments outlined in that submission about those issues, and I will only briefly refer to them because of time. I will say that the information does not give much comfort—even the submission put a year ago, back in August 2008, and then a written submission in, I think, late October 2008 to the Senate inquiry. There are lots of good things about how they are improving the petrol sniffing problem, but not much else.

So I went to the Nganampa Health Council which, of course, is the body responsible up there. They do not have anything in their annual reports: they just do not report anything any more. I think they spend half a million dollars every year on alcohol and substance abuse matters but they do not tell us anything about cannabis abuse in their report. I think they included one sentence this year. I rang the people in Alice Springs to see whether I could get any further information, because they did not even publish their financial reports in the actual reports, so we had to go through and get those checked off.

However, leaving that aside, there is nothing to tell us that, yet you would think, with what we are hearing anecdotally, that there would be a number of things. First, we would have something from the police—who are not permanently on the lands—and the women's council, I hasten to add, make it very clear in their submission that it is not really going to make much difference making any of these rules unless you have a permanent presence in the Mintabie township to supervise whatever the rules are going to be. So, let us have some of that. Let us have some answers from the government about:

the placement of someone at the Mintabie township for the supervision of these matters;

why we have not had arrests and/or prosecutions of people in this area;

why we are being asked to make a decision on matters without the evidence to support them in respect of this particular location; and

what the government is going to do in respect of making provision for that. We must have that information to be able to isolate this matter.

As much as I respect the women's council's having a very clear understanding of the difficulties they face there, their primary objective (which they acknowledge in their submission) is to oppose this community's having a lease at all. It may be for good reason, but I do not think they have identified that in their report.

In relation to the shop issue, I am not at all persuaded by what I think we are being asked to do, which is effectively to provide a monopoly for the store facilities that are in the other townships on the lands. Again, I am concerned that we do not have any report from consumer affairs as to unacceptable trade practices that are taking place there. We should have that information if we are going to be asked to impose this.

In 2006 (over three years ago), we debated some of the concerns at length and we said to the government, 'We are not happy with what is going on up there, but we accept for the moment that there is a trafficking in petrol and illicit substances on the APY lands.' We supported the government in increasing penalties for these people to a $50,000 fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, the confiscation of their car, which could be sold off in the event that it was to be forfeited under the rules and that the proceeds of those vehicles could go back to the APY lands. However, three years later, we have had no report back to this parliament about what action has occurred with respect to that legislation.

It is important that we deal with this issue. Those groups have been waiting out there in the wilderness for seven years without any clear information. There has been no attempt to give us that information and, until we have it, this will not have my support.

Time expired.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:01): I do not normally take a lot of time in the house, but can I say to the house and the minister that I am the only person left here who was involved at the time when the Pitjantjatjara land rights legislation was introduced and debated and went to a select committee, and I think I know all the major players who were involved in it. For example, there was Punch Thompson, Donald Fraser, Ivan Baker, Danny Colson and Yami Lester. I knew them all, and I have sat down and seen this whole process take place.

In relation to this legislation, let me make it very clear that I believe the people at Mintabie are just as entitled as anyone else to have a place in the sun. They were legally there before the AP lands legislation came into effect. It was a part of the Walatina pastoral lease. I have been there many times, and they provided services and facilities and acted legally.

What is the purpose of this legislation? Will it be the panacea: will it solve the problems of the people in the AP lands? If that was the case, I would vote for it. I want to see the people in the AP lands improve their status in life. I want their children to have a chance, and I want to see them gainfully employed and lead healthy and productive lives and go about their business. This measure will have no effect with respect to improving them. If you shut down Mintabie are you going to shut down Marla and Curtin Springs? Are you going to go across to Western Australia and shut down the place just over the border?

I want to mention some of the people who have been involved in these sorts of exercises—for example, that character who threw mud on Dean Brown a few months ago at the lakes was one of the major players in relation to the AP lands exercise and he was one of the hangers-on up there.

Mr Goldsworthy: Tregenza.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, John Tregenza; that character. I well recall going across to Wingellina in Western Australia, and he said to me, 'You will leave.' I said, 'Well, it will take a better bloke than you,' and he was a bit grumpy. He said, 'I don't want you here.' I said, 'Well, I thought that, as a citizen of this country, we've got freedom of movement. But I'm sure Sir Charles Court will be interested in you,' and I took it upon myself and went and met Charlie Court and he was most interested in that character. He was not there much longer—I do not know what happened. Charles Court was a man of great judgment. He had very good judgment and he was a fine Australian. Anyway, that is an aside.

In relation to this measure, a lot of people went there from Coober Pedy, but there had been mining at Mintabie years and years ago, although not large scale. Then when bulldozers arrived on the scene they went to Mintabie and there was massive mining. Millions and millions of dollars came out of Mintabie. They put in bulldozer cuts and went down 90 feet. Then they used those small front-end loaders and burrowed in, and it involved a huge quantity of money. Members of the Aboriginal community came along and noodled the dumps and made a lot of money. It was a good thing. If you had been there in the 1990s, you would have seen them; they were noodling. Then the facilities came. They got a school, which was a good thing, and there is a community hall. There is some accommodation at the Goanna Grill and some shops. There were some illegal activities but, unfortunately, that sort of thing has taken place everywhere.

At the end of the day, if we want to solve the problems in the AP lands, this is not the way to do it. There is a road, and I had a lot to do with getting the taxpayers to fund a new road into Mintabie. In the early days, we had to go on a track and open two gates to get in there. So, after a great deal of debate, discussion and harassment of government, we got a good, all-weather road built there so that the community could have easier access. I do not know if anyone has been there, but there is a big lagoon just on the edge of Mintabie and they used to have speedboats racing there after the big rains. I went to the opening of the school and the opening of hall, and I will never forget going to the opening of the hall. There was some discussion about raising a bit more money. They had drawn the rings on the ground and the police sergeant said, 'Wait until Mr Gunn and I get over the hill before you start playing two-up.' There were some interesting characters there.

At the end of the day, what do we really want for the people in the AP lands? Well, I think we want to give them an opportunity to go about their business in a productive, well-organised way, so that their children will get a decent education. No matter what we do, if those young people on the AP lands do not get a decent education there will always be problems.

A closed society has the potential to be a bad society. We have to open up the roads and make them the same as the roads anywhere else in South Australia. We have to encourage the community to allow enterprises there. I do not know whether the minister has read the evidence of the select committee. Jim Vickery from the Pastoral Board at the time estimated that you could run 50,000 head of cattle in the AP lands. Now they would not have 5,000 there. T&R has gone up there to do very good work, create opportunities and rebuild the infrastructure but now it has had trouble.

One of the problems has been that the people who have gone there to advise and associate with the local indigenous community have had odd agendas. They have used the community for other purposes which, in my view, have been dishonourable. We have had a royal commission. At the end of the day, we have to open it up in order to create opportunities and improve health care.

I remember going to a hospital in a particular community with Graham Ingerson on one occasion. As a pharmacist he was interested in it, so we went in and he asked to look at their drugs—and they were expired! He went through the roof. The people there did not seem to worry much about it. One could imagine what would happen if a hospital at Port Augusta or in Adelaide had expired drugs. Well, there was a bit of action when he got back.

We must encourage good people to go up there, so they can have cattle enterprises and tourists up there; so we can upgrade the health and other facilities. There is a need to ensure that the education we give these young people includes things in which they are interested, because they will make progress when young Aborigines become role models and take leadership roles in their communities. That is when great progress will be made. They can encourage other people to go forward and improve their station in life and give leadership to their communities.

Years ago when people used to sly grog from Curtin Springs the elders would catch them and burn their motor cars. They could not do it a second time, but the powers that be said that it was too draconian, we could not have that, so that process was stopped. We had mining enterprises at Wingellina and there was more chrystophase dropping off the trucks than ever hit the markets. A big bulldozer was left on the side of the hill.

I have seen this whole process go from good, bad to indifferent. This legislation is aimed at a small group of people. If you lived at Mintabie and went to school there, if you have left and you want to go back, under this legislation you will have to get a permit to go there. That is an absolute nonsense. If you go to Woodville High School and a few years later you want to go back there, you do not have to get a permit.

What good will this do? This will not stop people going to Coober Pedy, Marla or Oodnadatta, or anywhere else, if they want to get alcohol. Prohibition has never worked. If people are involved in sly grogging it is an offence everywhere, so that is a role for the police to be involved in. But in most communities it would be regarded as unreasonable and silly to say to people, 'You are not allowed to have half a dozen cans of beer in your fridge to have a drink after a hard day's work.' Will police go around checking people's refrigerators? What have we come to? At the end of the day we can put these draconian laws in place and say that we have fixed Mintabie, but we have still not solved the problems, difficulties and challenges on the APY lands.

This will be my last opportunity to speak. I have visited there many times. I have sat in creeks and spoken to people at length. They always used to say to me, 'We want our young people to be able to read and write. We will teach them Pitjantjatjara. We do not want white teachers teaching them Pitjantjatjara.' They wanted to be involved in cattle enterprises; they liked it and they wanted to be involved. Some of them had little enterprises, but there were always challenges.

That country has great opportunities. I am sure that the tourist industry could be developed responsibly at Amata, and so on, and backpackers and people who like climbing mountains would have a wonderful time. If I were to get a couple of buses and take every member of the South Australia parliament to Indulkana and Fregon, it would be such an eye-opener for them. They would be so appalled at some of the conditions that they would want immediate action. They would not want window-dressing or things to appease a few agitators and others but not do anything long term to affect the total community.

If we do not improve the circumstances out there, do you think the young people will want to stay there? They want to go to the bright lights of Alice Springs and wear Reeboks. If they go to Alice Springs and see the other young people there, do you think they would want to go back to live in an old car or a smashed-up house or be affected by hundreds of mangy dogs? Do you really think that is the sort of environment they want to live in?

It is no good blaming Mintabie; that is just a minor source. If you think there are problems being created at Mintabie, they are going to shift elsewhere. The point I want to emphasise is that the people of Mintabie were there; they live there. Some of them have been there for a long time. They were there before the APY lands legislation was enacted.

I first met Marie Shaw when she acted for the Mintabie Opal Miners Association—she and the late Frank Moran, and they did a great job. They stuck up for them, and they argued with Philip Toyne and those other people who had even grander ideas. The processes they put in place made the place a restricted area, and only members of parliament and registered candidates can visit there; ordinary law-abiding citizens cannot. People are being denied entry there.

So, minister, I put this to you with the best will in the world: I do not believe that this will help the people in the AP lands. It may appease a few people, but the real inherent problem there is the lack of the ability to get an education. The most important thing that we can do is make sure that children go to school and we need to make sure that we have adequate, effective health facilities there to ensure that we can create opportunities for people to have some meaningful work and pride in themselves. That is not going to be achieved by this legislation. All this will do is upset and make life difficult for a small group of people. The overwhelming majority of them are not villains. There have been one or two people who have done the wrong thing but, unfortunately, that is life in general. Every community has one or two people who do not do the right thing, but we do not suddenly draw up a set of laws that penalise the whole community.

I will not delay the house any more, but I believe that the people of Mintabie are entitled to be treated fairly and reasonably. They should not have to go through this permit system, annual reviews and all that sort of thing, because it will only tie up the police. What will we do with someone who forgets to renew their permit, if that is the only house they have to live in? It is a pretty harsh environment. If it is the only place they have to live, how are you going to put them off? That will not achieve anything.

I have made my point clearly. I believe that these people's representations have not been given adequate consideration. I believe that they are entitled to be treated fairly and reasonably, and I believe that there are other important issues that need to be addressed to ensure that the people who live in the AP lands can enhance their position and move forward to create better opportunities for the next generation of young people. I want to be able to see them take their place in the community.

I have driven out there by myself many times. I have flown in there and all sorts of places. When you take off from Yulara and you fly to Amata, you fly right over the top of Mount Woodroffe, the highest point in the state. If it is a hot day and you are flying up around those hills, I can tell you that there are a few lumps there.

I will conclude by saying that, on one of my visits to Mintabie, Peter Dunn and I had Michael Armitage with us. We took him up there to show him things. We took off first thing in the morning. I was flying and, off we went, climbing up to 4,500 feet. Peter Dunn was a great one to save fuel, and he put oil in the mixture and stopped the engine. Poor old Michael was nearly in the front seat with us. He did not actually think that was very funny. All we had to do was push everything forward—the motor had hardly dropped—and we were mobile again. It was an interesting morning, and I think he was pleased to get on the ground at Coober Pedy. That is just an aside, and one of the many interesting things.

On one night we were camped at the airport out at Umuwa and the damned donkeys woke us up. We were camped under the wings and, at about two o'clock in the morning, there were donkeys coming around the place. We were frightened that they would start biting the aeroplane, so we had to chase them away.

Mr Goldsworthy: What, wild ones?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, wild ones. There are heaps of donkeys and camels. There are thousands of camels up there, as well as other interesting wildlife. I have made my point. I ask the minister to treat the people of Mintabie fairly, because it will not help the Aboriginal people if they are penalised.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (17:20): The member for Stuart has just made a very good and interesting speech, as he usually does, and mentioned that it would not solve the problems in the APY lands. The APY themselves, including their executive; the women's council; police; Nganampa Health; welfare organisations; the people of Marla; Families SA workers; and so many more, say that, yes, it will help some of the problems in the APY lands.

It is such a shame that the Liberal opposition has taken this stand on this bill. First, I want to congratulate the member for Morphett for his courage in saying what he has. I have great respect for the member for Morphett. He has great integrity and great honesty. I have served on the Aboriginal lands committee with him for the last eight years and have admired him for the fact that he has always put Aboriginal people first. He has never used it as a political platform. We went into that committee under the agreement that we would look after Aboriginal people; that was to be our prime cause. On the odd occasion, we have told off members of the committee when they have tried to use it to their own political ends, and we have sorted them out very quickly.

The member for Morphett has always been a great ally of mine. He must find it very difficult here today with this legislation, because he presented a lot of the background on the Mintabie legislation and why people are feeling so strongly about it and about why it has been recommended as a means of action.

Recently, I moved into a new flat in Fullarton, and I love it. It is bigger and comfortable. I have put pictures on the walls, I have decorated it how I want, I have my furniture there and I have made it very personal to me. However, I would like to have a dog, but I do not have one. I certainly cannot do any major structural alterations. I would like to have the kitchen done up, but I am not doing that. I have to care for the garden (something I do not particularly like), and I have to make sure that I water it, keep it going and whatever, so I have respect for it.

I do not have wild parties every night of the week, and I do not sell drugs from there or grow dope in the backyard, although there is a lovely area that I am sure would be a perfect little dope growing area, but I do not do that. I do not sell grog or make my own grog. The reason I do not do all those things is that it is not my property—although I do not grow drugs or sell grog from the property I own in Whyalla, either.

I do not make any alterations or have a dog because it is not my property and because my lease states that I cannot do lots of those things: I cannot have a dog, I cannot alter the flat structurally and I cannot do any of those sorts of things. So, to me this issue in Mintabie is quite simple: it is part of their lease, they do not own the land and they are not the owners. The owners of the land are the APY.

We recognise that, over 30 years, this has been a place from which many of the problems have emerged, so this act is really stating that we respect the owners of the land and that, if you live there, you lease that area, that it is part of your lease and that there are things you cannot do—end of story. What is the problem?

The member for Stuart went into lots of the history, and I was interested to listen because it is now part of my electorate. He has a long history in the region because, of course, he was the local member for many years. He talked about all the issues that need to be resolved and, yes, I agree with him that there are many issues on the APY lands that need to be resolved.

He talked about the permit system and about how dreadful it was that somebody who had been born in Mintabie would have to apply for a permit to go back into the area. I am sorry, member for Stuart, but this is part of the lease and part of living in that area. It is not their land, and they have to abide by what the owners want.

I have said and will continue to say that one of the biggest problems which occurred in the past and which will continue into the future is that many people who go onto the lands—and I am not saying all of them because some fantastic people work there in different departments, for the Aboriginal council, etc.—fit into the category of missionary, mercenary or misfit, and they have created a lot of problems in those communities.

People go in with the wrong motives, or with ulterior motives, or they are total misfits who cannot get a job anywhere else so they go up there. I believe that the permit system will help to weed out a lot of those issues, and I am very glad that we have that system because there are people we need to keep out of those communities and those land areas. So, I support the permit system—I always have and I always will—and I will be terribly sorry if it is eventually abolished because I think it will open up a whole can of worms if we do so.

This legislation will not solve the problems on the lands, but it recognises many of the drug-running issues, the grog-running issues, the issues with people's ATM cards being taken and kept on site in the stores and the issues with people having no access to their money because the cards are in the stores and their not knowing how much money is going into or out of their account because they never know what is going on.

In the past, I have had many dealings with people who have dealt with shonky car dealers who operate through Mintabie and sell cars that last five minutes on the lands because of the roads and the conditions there. This legislation recognises that many of these issues emanate from Mintabie, from that area, and this sort of thing has been happening there for over 30 years. Everyone is saying is that this is one of the problems. It is not the whole problem, but is a big area of the problems that are there.

I cannot understand why the opposition feels so passionately about this because we are not talking about a big community. We are not talking about a community of 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 people who are being affected by this measure. Mintabie is a very small community. I think that something like 93 voters are on the electoral roll, so probably about 150 or 160 people live there, as I am sure the many may not be on the roll.

We are not talking about a huge community of people who are being affected by this legislation. We are talking about a very small number, but we are talking about a large number of people whose lives have been affected by what has been emanating from the Mintabie community, particularly young people.

It is tough on the locals. It is tough that you cannot have a beer in the fridge or a bottle of wine in the cupboard, and I am not sure that I would particularly like it. However, if my landlord told me I could not have any grog in my flat, I would not have any grog in my flat. It is just part of the deal. It is not life shattering if you cannot have half a dozen beers in your fridge and have to go to the pub to have a drink.

However, the effects of drugs and alcohol and lack of access to your money can be life shattering for not only the young people but anybody who lives on the lands. Perhaps you are not a grog drinker, but you have seen your son, daughter or a member of your family die, and it has shattered your life, So, if I had a choice between not having a drink or a life being affected, I know which path I would take.

The member for Stuart said that many good things are happening there and that supporting this legislation will not change what is happening in those areas. That may be his theory, but opposing it will not change the things that are going on, either, and these things will continue to go on. The opposition is denying the opinions of so many people who are working there every day in those areas, who know what is going on, who know the problems that are happening, and they are saying, 'We need this legislation.' We should respect those opinions.

I know that the member for Stuart has spent a lot of time there in the past, but, as he said, he flies in and out from Uluru. Well, that is fine; you drop in for an hour or two, but you are not living in those communities as do many of the experts who have come up with this legislation. The opposition is denying the opinions of those people.

It sounds good to say how terrible this is for the people of Mintabie, that we are denying their basic human rights. It is an emotional sort of argument that you can push, but I feel far more emotional about the lives of people who are affected by what is happening there.

I fully support this legislation. I think it is very important. Yes, I am going against the wishes of my constituents—and I know I am because I have had many emails and contact from the people in Mintabie who feel very strongly about this—but I do not care. Normally, I support my constituents as hard as I can, but in this case I say, no, I believe that what is happening out there is wrong and we need this legislation to change things in that area.

If people are not happy with that, then I am sorry. It is not your land, you may have to move on. It is just like my flat; it is a fact of life that if you do not own it then you really cannot say what needs to be done. If the owners are saying you cannot do this, then you cannot do it. Marla is only 27 kilometres away from Mintabie. People can move into that area if they want to be able to have beers in their fridge, or whatever. It is not life shattering, but there are life shattering results, so I fully support this legislation.

I urge the opposition to think again about their arguments. Do not talk about human rights; talk about human rights for the lives of the people on the lands who are affected.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (17:32): I thank all members who have made contributions. I note that those opposite oppose this legislation. I have to note that the lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Morphett, placed on the record some very compelling reasons the opposition should, in fact, be supporting the legislation. Of course, I am grateful that he has put that material on the record.

I think the argument really comes down to two fundamental issues. The first is: whose land is this? The contributions that have been made seem to proceed from the misapprehension that somehow the title that was restored to Aboriginal people through the historic APY lands legislation was when their rights to ownership commenced. The truth is that it was simply restoring an historical wrong. It was simply recognising that it was always their land.

As it is their land, those opposite, being the property party, I would have thought would be standing up for the rights of landowners to do as they will with their own land. That is a fairly fundamental principle about how anybody who has the right to property should be entitled to deal with it. I think that a lot of the contributions seem to suggest that there is a lack of legitimacy, or that the grant of that land should give way, in some way, to these later claims that are made by the residents of Mintabie.

The second fundamental issue concerning why we should support this legislation is that people in this country are quick to blame Aboriginal people and point the finger at them when they do not take responsibility for their own circumstances. We know that there is disadvantage in Aboriginal communities. We know that the APY community is struggling with a lot of disadvantage, and they know this and they acknowledge it.

What they have chosen to do as a group of people, through their representatives, is to try to take responsibility for that. What they are seeking to do in this measure is to ask the parliament to assist them in taking responsibility for that. What they want is to act on the best advice that they can receive. The best advice of all the professionals who are engaged to support the people of the APY lands is that Mintabie is a vector for a lot of unfortunate activity, in particular the running of grog into the APY lands. It is an important one; it is important enough for the police to say that steps need to be taken to curtail it.

Of course there is a range of other organisations—Nganampa, and the NPY Women's Council and, indeed, those other organisations such as UnitingCare Wesley, which takes a particular interest in the APY lands—who have all made the same observations, and, most powerfully, Commissioner Mullighan, who, in giving evidence to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, I am advised, said that if it was down to him he would close Mintabie entirely.

That is the starting position, I must say, for APY. They want this land back, they do not want Mintabie there, but they acknowledge that there is an existing community there and they are prepared to make accommodations. They have been prepared to compromise in ways that they find distasteful, but nevertheless they accept that they want to try to reach an accommodation with those residents.

So, for us to throw that back in their face, to say that, despite them wanting to take control over their own affairs, to take these steps to ensure that these negative influences, which are coming into their communities, which are a scourge in their communities, and not meet them halfway and do the things that we can do as a parliament to assist them in making those choices, I think would be a horrible thing to do to this community. It would disempower them, it would undermine them, and it would show them a level of disrespect. What it would really be saying is that they may have land rights, but they are really not first-class land rights, they are second-class rights that we have decided to read down in this place. For all those reasons, I urge this house to support the bill, and I thank all members for their contribution.

Before I do conclude, in particular I want to acknowledge the member for Giles. Of course, the member for Giles as the local member has responsibility for the residents of Mintabie. I have been on the other side of the argument when the member for Giles is advocating for her community and it is not a pleasant place to be. She almost always takes the side of the residents of her community because she sees her role as a member to represent their views faithfully, but here she has decided, notwithstanding their views, to look at the broader issue of another group of her constituents, who, of course, are the people of the APY lands. She has had to balance those things.

There are choices to be made here. There is no doubt that there is a level of inconvenience for these particular citizens and that must be balanced against the threat that exists to the broader APY community. When one weighs the inconvenience (which is real) against the threat to the APY lands, it is a very powerful one—and we know about the effects of alcohol abuse and the consequential effects that that can have for a whole range of behaviour, including sexual abuse—and it is her judgment (and one that I share) that we must take these measures to protect, in a sense, that interest, which really overrides the other interest that is inconvenienced by these changes. I thank her for the leadership she has taken. It has assisted the house, I think, to arrive at the proper conclusion here and it demonstrates that she is prepared to accept the role of leadership in relation to her community. I thank all members for their contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: At the time that the AP land rights legislation was introduced into the parliament and debated, clear undertakings were given to the people of Mintabie, and if you doubt my word, ask Ian and Carla Kimber. Ian Kimber was the mines department warden at Mintabie at that time; he now lives in Port Augusta. Those undertakings were given clearly and precisely on behalf of those people to ensure that they had a future, because what the minister did not say in his second reading response was that Mintabie was a part of the Wallatinna pastoral lease. It was incorporated. We are not talking about areas outside, the unincorporated areas, it was part of it. Those people went there legally and they were given assurances and undertakings that their rights would be reasonably protected and decisions were taken to enhance their ability to live there.

It is no good people saying anything different because I was there. I know what was said. It was as clear as night follows day. I can tell you that there were some pretty heated discussions behind the scenes between Trevor Griffin, me and others. They were very unhappy with me because I stuck out for these people. I believe that, notwithstanding what the minister has said today, he is talking about whose land it is. The land was alienated in a pastoral lease and it was then set aside. That was part of the deal to have this historic agreement to create the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act.

This matter was under discussion for a long time. The Dunstan government put a proposal to the parliament with no intention of proceeding with it because it was so radical. I know for a fact that the ministers in the Dunstan government—and I had better not name them—made sure the bill did not proceed. When there was an election, there was a change of government, and it started again. Part of that arrangement was that we would pass this historic agreement—you had Ernabella, which was previously run by the Presbyterian church, and other areas, they would forgo their rights and there was not a deal done—and that the people of Mintabie would be protected.

That is where I come from and that is why I have taken the stand I have. I want to see the people in the AP lands improve their status. I want to see them given opportunities and I want to see the right thing done, but if anyone believes that putting restrictions on the people of Mintabie will solve the problems of drug running, domestic violence and other improper activities, it is like whistling Dixie in the dark. That is about as bright as it will be, because it will have no effect whatsoever. For goodness sake, apply a bit of common sense.

I will not say anymore. I have done my part. I hope I have put on the record a few historic facts, but remember this: clear undertakings were given to those people and, in my view, they have now been basically abrogated. Okay, governments want to tear up those sorts of things. The member says there are 90 people on the roll, well, when I was there about 90 people did vote. I understand that. I have stayed overnight there many times, like at Indulkana. I guarantee that this will do nothing to improve the lives of the people at Indulkana who are living in a spot which, I have to say, is one of the most unfortunate areas in South Australia.

When you go on that gibber plain and see people living in motor cars and houses wrecked, this will do nothing to help them. I say to the minister that I sincerely hope he thinks about how this will be implemented and apply a bit of common sense. If you really want to help these people very substantial decisions need to be made, such as opening up the roads and encouraging responsible commercial development which will employ, help and assist the Aboriginal communities who live there, and create opportunities so that young people want to be there and lead productive and interesting lives and raise their standard of living.

The most important thing we can do is to raise their standard of living. It is appalling to go there and see young people with Coke cans around their neck sniffing petrol. I have gone there and said to some of these people who have been there advising them, 'Why don't you do something about this?' They throw their hands in the air. You think, 'Heaven help us. What are you here for?', because they are blowing their brains out. I have made my point. I will save the committee the indignity of a division, but the minister knows my point of view.

I am right in what I say. I know that. Before any of you people here ever heard of the Pitjantjatjara lands I was going there. Just remember that. I was going there in 1970. It was a lot harder to get up there then than it is today—a lot harder. I have driven through there and camped on the side of the road. I did all those things. I was going up there before Marla was there. Marla was not even there.

Ms Breuer: Marla Bore.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Marla Bore was not there.

Ms Breuer: Marla Bore was there but not Marla.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The windmill was there. It was on Wellborn Hill Station—Ernie Giles's station. I stayed a night there. I know the history of the place. I would drive up there. To drive out through there was an interesting exercise, and I look forward to doing it again one day in the next 18 months. Barry Wakelin and I are looking forward to doing it again. They might not let us in. They stopped Ian McLachlan from going in after he retired as defence minister. That was not a very smart thing to do.

One of their problems is that the Aboriginal people have had political activists up there more interested in political activity than their genuine welfare. I conclude on this note. I will never forget when I rang up the permit officer and said, 'You've knocked back Mr McLachlan's application to drive through here. What do you think you're doing?' I got a crazy left-wing female from Alice Springs. This is what I said to her: 'Someone who had the highest security rating in this country you've stopped from going there. His family have happily handed over some of these properties to be incorporated in this particular legislation. They did it because they thought that it was the right thing to do. Do you realise this person is a personal friend of the Prime Minister? How do you reckon your budget allocation's going?'

There was dead silence on the phone. I put the phone down and rang Donald Fraser who was a friend of mine, and, in a few minutes, the permit came through. It was rather interesting. He was very upset. That is the sort of stupid person who has held back the Aborigines in those areas—those sorts of political agitators. I have gone to some of those places. You have had derelicts there and all they wanted to do with someone like me was to abuse me. I said to them in those days, 'It doesn't matter what you say. You agitate and get everyone to vote against me. It won't have any effect. You've got me and you'll have to put up with me.'

I think that I am the only Liberal to have ever won the Pitjantjatjara land rights boxes. I won one election up there. I actually think that I have some affinity with those people and understand how they think. Unlike some of you people, as a young person I worked with lots of Aborigines in shearing sheds. I have had some experience with them and I have never had any problem dealing with them personally. I have had a fair bit of trouble dealing with some of their agitators and advisers who had other agendas. I have made my point. I say to the minister: they were given undertakings at Mintabie and I do not believe those undertakings have now been honoured.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (5), schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (17:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank my advisers for their long and very detailed work in the negotiations and also in the drafting of the bill. I acknowledge Adrian Shackley and his assistants. I also acknowledge the contributions that have been made by all members, and thank them for the same.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT