Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

ABORIGINAL LANDS AMENDMENT BILL 2004 (No. 69)

Second Reading

[2.48 p.m.]

Mr LENNON (Franklin - Premier - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

It gives me great pleasure to stand before you today to introduce what I hope will be the next step on the path to reconciliation with the Aboriginal community.

Divisions have held Tasmania back for too long. Former Premier Jim Bacon, as you know, was passionate about this issue. Jim was right when he said, as he often did, that Tasmanians can achieve more if we work together. And reconciliation with the Aboriginal community is vital to allow Tasmanians to be able to move forward together.

My Government strongly believes that land is central to the issue of reconciliation. You cannot have reconciliation without returning land to the Aboriginal people. Return of land is a key to empowering the Aboriginal community and is one mechanism that can address historic grievances. I also believe that land ownership by the Tasmanian Aboriginal community is fundamental to ensuring the recognition and survival of Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage and culture. This bill, therefore, is an act of reconciliation.

We know this is a complex and emotive issue. That's why we have invested considerable time in talking with the community at length about the issues involved. The importance of Cape Barren Island to Tasmania's Aboriginal community goes far beyond those who now live on Cape Barren Island. There are many Aboriginal people who live on mainland Tasmania who have a very strong association with the Furneaux Group and, indeed, call it home. But as a government promoting unity and cooperation over division, we need to listen to other sections of the broader community on this issue, and we have done that.

The bill I speak to today seeks to transfer crown land on Cape Barren Island, Clarke Island and Goose Island to the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania. It is appropriate at this time to flag that the Government will be moving amendments to the bill to remove Goose Island from the schedule of land to be transferred. This change is the outcome of extensive consultation with the Flinders Council. Given the council's very strong position on Goose Island, the Government has reluctantly agreed to remove Goose Island from the bill.

While I regret that we will be moving these amendments, I believe they do not alter the fact that the bill represents an important and necessary step toward reconciliation with the Aboriginal people. The removal of Goose Island from the bill demonstrates that we have not only consulted with, but listened to, the broader Furneaux community. This removal of Goose Island from the bill was one part of a memorandum of understanding signed with the Flinders Council.

This legislation really does come from the people of Tasmania. Tasmanians have told us through the Tasmania Together process that they wanted to empower the Aboriginal community by increasing land in Aboriginal ownership or management. Since the launch of Tasmania Together , we have made no progress in this area. We failed to meet the 2003 target to have 56 000 hectares in Aboriginal hands, and the 2005 target of 77 300 hectares is now upon us. Only 4 742 hectares of Tasmania is currently owned by the Aboriginal community. The transfer of Cape Barren and Clarke islands will take the total amount of land in Aboriginal ownership to about 50 855 hectares - just under the 2003 target.

I urge my parliamentary colleagues to understand that this is the right thing to do - for all Tasmanians

Consultation

The State Government has, of course, already made one attempt to transfer Cape Barren Island to the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, as part of the Aboriginal Lands Amendment Bill 1999, which failed to pass the Legislative Council in March, 2001. This was part of a much larger package of land, which included a number of other areas around Tasmania. The message to the Government at that time was that despite broad community support for the proposal, we had not got the consultation right. I do not shy away from that. I would like to make it clear that we, as a government, took on board those concerns and we have taken steps to improve our consultation both with the Aboriginal community and with the wider community.

I can inform the House that there has been extensive, comprehensive consultation on this proposal to transfer Cape Barren Island, Goose Island and Clarke Island. I have personally visited Flinders Island on two occasions in the past months to speak to the Flinders Council, Aboriginal groups and individuals about our plans. I have also visited Cape Barren Island and spoken to people there, including landholders and leaseholders. Letters and information have been sent to Aboriginal organisations, State and Federal parliamentarians, State government agencies, the Local Government Association, Circular Head Council and Flinders Council, fishing industry groups, crown licence and leaseholders and those with freehold interests. We have provided as much detail as possible about what we are proposing - and have strongly encouraged those organisations and individuals to make their views known.

As part of those consultations with the Flinders Council, there was a further meeting that I attended with the Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council, Michael Aird, and three delegates of the Flinders Council: Deputy Mayor Carol Cox, Councillor Lynn Mason and Councillor Lois Ireland. The outcome of this meeting was the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Deputy Mayor, Carol Cox. I now table the memorandum of understanding. This is further evidence of this Government's commitment to listen and respond to community issues.

There have been a number of practical issues that have arisen from the consultations and the Government has dealt with those issues.

I would like to make it very clear to the Parliament that the transfer of this crown land to the ALCT does not in any way affect the application of State and local government planning legislation to that land. Furthermore, my Government does not support any moves to create a new municipality for Cape Barren Island. I can also say that this Government, in the life of this Parliament, has no further plans to transfer any additional areas of land in the Furneaux Group to the Aboriginal community, once these islands have been transferred.

Cape Barren Island

The State Government believes that it is extremely important that these areas of land be returned to the Aboriginal community. There is abundant evidence of pre-European Aboriginal occupation of Cape Barren, Clarke and Goose Islands - as well as continuing links with the Aboriginal community since European settlement. There are 39 Aboriginal sites on Cape Barren Island recorded on the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index. The age of the sites extends from 10 000 years ago to the middle of the nineteenth century. They include 24 artefact scatters, two artefact/quarry scatters, 11 isolated scatters, one midden and a rock shelter with evidence of occupation.

Since European settlement, Cape Barren Island has had a chequered history. In 1798, the first sealing camp in Bass Strait was set up in Kent Bay. The Aboriginal women in the sealers' camps on Vansittart Island used to cross over a ford to Cape Barren Island to collect traditional food. Aborigines also began to settle on Cape Barren as they were forced off the smaller islands as the Government granted leases to non-Aborigines. In 1881, the Government reserved 6 000 acres of land for Aborigines at the west end of Cape Barren. A school was set up at Long Beach and in 1890, a school was built at a place called the Corner.

An islander association was established in 1897, which sent many petitions to the Government relating to mutton-birding and land issues. In 1912, the Cape Barren Island Reserve Act became law, designed to control the movement and lifestyle of Aborigines living on the island. The reserve was closed in 1951 and health and welfare authorities attempted to get people to move off the island through the assimilation policy of the Government at the time.

This policy included the forcible removal of children from families on Cape Barren Island to relocate them to mainland Tasmania. One of those children was Annette Peardon. She and her brother, Derek, were taken from their mother, Joyce Lavina-Peardon, nee Mansell, when they were just five and eight. Joyce was charged with neglect and imprisoned for three months. The children were put into State care and Derek never saw his mother again. Annette remembers her early years on Cape Barren Island as the best of her life. She talks about the feeling of belonging she experienced returning to her 'home country'. Annette has now retired and is about to move permanently back to her home - Cape Barren Island. Over the years, she has worked tirelessly for the Aboriginal community, which included working with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre's Link-Up program.

An important element of this program is bringing Aboriginal children to the Furneaux islands to learn about their families and their heritage.

Goose and Clarke islands

Goose Island is also significant to the Aboriginal community. Although we are going to move an amendment to remove Goose Island from this bill, I want to put on the record here today, the significance attached to this decision. Goose Island was not chosen randomly, as something we could sacrifice for political ends. The Aboriginal community identified Goose Island as an area of significance to them, and we respect that. The decision to move the amendment to remove Goose from the package was not taken lightly. It is a very significant concession to the Flinders Council, representing the wider Furneaux community, as part of the consultations and negotiations on this legislation.

Goose Island was the location for a meeting between Governor Du Cane and members of the Aboriginal Island community in 1871. In 1860, the Government promised to reserve some land for the Aborigines. However, it was not until further petitioning following this meeting that some land on Cape Barren Island was granted to the Aboriginal community.

Clarke Island also features a number of sites of cultural significance, including two artefact sites and two shelter sites, identified and recorded on the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index:

'Stone tools found at the sites are like others found at about 20 other sites on surrounding islands and show a consistent pattern of occupation on those islands.'

I am also informed that significant artefacts found on the island are estimated to date back to when it was part of the land bridge. Since European occupation, a number of Aboriginal families have been associated with the island, including the Thomas, Maynard, Mansell, Everett and Beeton families. This close association by the Aboriginal community continues today.

The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre - TAC - currently uses the island for a diversionary program for Aboriginal youth at Ashley Youth Detention Centre, with funding assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services. The TAC chose Clarke Island for a number of reasons, including its isolation and the Aboriginal community's connection with the island.

Details of the transfer

The State Government is proposing to transfer 50 855 hectares of crown land to the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania. This includes 42 706 hectares on Cape Barren Island, and 8 149 hectares on Clarke Island. The transfer includes most of the crown land on Cape Barren Island and all of the crown land on Clarke Island. The land is transferred to the high water mark. The transfer of crown land on Cape Barren Island includes the infrastructure on the land, namely roads, an airstrip, jetty, and school. The facilities will be leased back to the Crown and other authorities at peppercorn rental to ensure continued provision of services to Cape Barren Island residents.

Power to issue new leases and licences

The bill includes provision for the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania to grant new leases and licences to enable this to occur. The land will be held by the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania in trust for the Tasmanian Aboriginal people in perpetuity.

Public access

The bill clearly outlines what access is allowed in relation to each area of land. In relation to the land to be transferred on Clarke Island , the public will at all times have pedestrian access to the area of land 15 metres wide immediately above the high-water mark. This is the same principle that applies to land previously transferred under the Groom Liberal Government. Namely, part of Mount Cameron West, Mount Chappell Island, Badger Island, Steep (Head) Island, Babel Island, Great Dog Island and part of Cape Barren Island. This will enable the coastal areas on these lands to remain publicly accessible for recreation purposes.

In relation to Cape Barren Island, the public will at all times have pedestrian access to the area of land 15 metres wide immediately above the high-water mark and over the coastal areas currently reserved for the public. On Cape Barren Island, public access has also been guaranteed over public and access roads and vehicular tracks that exist at the time this legislation is enacted. These roads have been included on the Central Plan Register Map of Cape Barren Island. Public access over the roads identified on the CPR map is guaranteed in the bill. In addition, public access over reserved roads on the island is also guaranteed to ensure that no legal means of access to individuals' properties is denied.

Access to graves on Clarke Island and Cape Barren Island

Where members of the public wish to access other parts of the land transferred to the ALCT, it will be necessary to seek the permission of the ALCT just as permission is needed to access any other private property. The ALCT has assured the Government and concerned individuals that it will, on request, permit reasonable access to members of the public who wish to visit their relatives' grave sites on the islands. For example, the ALCT has written to a member of the MacLaine family to make this assurance regarding access to their family graves on Clarke Island.

Existing lease and licence holders on crown land

Crown land to be transferred on Cape Barren Island includes crown land that is currently leased or licensed. Under the Aboriginal Lands Act 1995, the terms and conditions of lease and licence arrangements will not be affected by the transfer and will continue to operate until the lease or licence expires. Following the expiration of leases and licences, the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania will be responsible for granting and renewing lease and licence arrangements.

Parties aggrieved by a decision of the ALCT not to renew an existing lease or licence will have appeal rights to the chairperson of the Resource Planning and Development Commission.

The bill also enables leaseholders of two rural properties on Cape Barren Island - Soren and Roy Fuglsang - to seek compensation for improvements they have made to these properties. Under the existing provisions of the Crown Lands Act 1976, rural leaseholders of crown land whose leases expire, terminate or are surrendered by mutual agreement are entitled to apply for compensation for improvements.

Although the transfer of land to the ALCT does not terminate the leases, a leaseholder loses the potential right to apply for compensation in the future. The only leaseholders of rural crown land on the two islands to be transferred are the Fuglsangs and the Indigenous Land Corporation - ILC.

The issue of compensation for improvements to leased land was raised during the Government's consultation process. The Government does not believe that it is appropriate to make legislation permitting the ILC to seek compensation for improvements made to its leased properties on Cape Barren Island and Clarke Island. The Aboriginal community now directly benefits from the crown land leased by the ILC. It will be the Aboriginal community who will own this land once Parliament passes this legislation. A compensation payment to the Aboriginal community for any improvements to this leased crown land will be a windfall benefit - in effect, a double benefit to the Aboriginal community. Payment of a double benefit of this kind is not what the Government or the Aboriginal community intends as part of this legislation.

Conversion of crown land to individual freehold title on Cape Barren Island

Another issue raised during consultation was the area of crown land surrounding Morton Summers' private freehold property on Cape Barren Island. Mr Summers has been attempting to obtain this area of land since at least 1994. The area of crown land surrounds Mr Summers' residence and is used to access his property. There is also a family connection to the land. In 1873, it was granted to Mr Summers' great-grandfather - but in 1912, was compulsorily acquired by the Crown under the Cape Barren Island Reserve Act 1912. In 1953, Mr Summers' father purchased part of the land that the family had originally held - that part that Mr Summers' residence is on. Mr Summers has been unable to obtain the remaining area of land because of the general moratorium on the sale of crown land on the island. The area of land will be transferred to Mr Summers when the bill receives royal assent. Mr Summers will apply to the Recorder of Titles to register the transfer under section 138A of the Land Titles Act 1980.

Removal of public, nature and conservation reserves

The legislation provides for the removal of public reserves on Cape Barren Island and the nature reserve on Clarke Island to enable the land to be transferred to the Aboriginal community without reservation.

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania and the State Government have agreed to a number of measures that will ensure the future protection of the area's natural and historical values. It has been agreed that the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania will seek to categorise the Ramsar wetlands on Cape Barren Island, and the nature reserve part of Clarke Island as Indigenous Protected Areas. In addition, the ALCT will develop management plans in cooperation with the State Government to protect rare plant and animal species found on Cape Barren Island and Clarke Island.

Ongoing local management

The State Government also believes the issue of ongoing local management of the land has been satisfactorily resolved. The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania has written to the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association confirming that the association is to be the local manager for Cape Barren Island. This agreement has also been endorsed by the broader Aboriginal community through a range of community meetings and consultation. It has also been decided by the ALCT that the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Incorporated - TAC - will be appointed the local manager for Clarke Island.

A land management audit was undertaken to provide baseline information about what is required to adequately protect and manage the natural, historical and Aboriginal cultural values of the land, as well as to help determine the funding requirements of the land council to undertake its management responsibilities. This audit was completed in February 2005. The ALCT will also develop a series of land management plans in conjunction with local managers as part of their statutory responsibilities under the Aboriginal Lands Act 1995. The management framework provided by the audit will help in defining different management options.

The preparation of the audit has involved extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, the local Aboriginal community and the ALCT. I am happy to provide copies of the audit to members of the House. It is also publicly available on the Internet at www.premier.tas.gov.au

Land management funding

The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, with the assistance of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, has secured approximately $675 000 over the next three years for the sustainable management of Aboriginal coastal lands through National Heritage Trust funds. This funding will be used for on-ground works to protect, conserve and rehabilitate the natural and Aboriginal heritage values associated with the land; the development of management plans; and Aboriginal cultural-based and nature-based tourism infrastructure and activities. There is also significant potential for some land management functions identified in the land management audit, such as fire management, weed management, feral animal control, to be undertaken by the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association from this funding. I believe this is a very good outcome.

Maintenance of roads

The ALCT, the CBIAA and local residents have raised concerns regarding the urgent need for maintenance of the roads and bridges on Cape Barren Island. The Flinders Council also raised concerns about maintaining all of the 92 kms of roads that have been identified and included on the CPR map for Cape Barren Island. As a result of these concerns, the Government has agreed that it will take over the responsibility for the roads - including bridges - on Cape Barren Island following the bill receiving royal assent. The Flinders Council will no longer be required to undertake road and bridge maintenance on Cape Barren Island.

The CBIAA has expressed an interest in undertaking some of the practical works on the roads, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources - DIER. An annual schedule of road works will be agreed between the DIER and CBIAA and funded through a service agreement between the two parties. A specific budget provision for this purpose will be made through DIER and will be identified in the forward estimates and published in the State's budget papers. To assist in undertaking this work, additional funding will be provided to purchase used plant and equipment for the CBIAA. The Tasmanian Government will also discuss with the Aboriginal Lands Council of Tasmania options for securing access to recreational amenities adjoining public roads.

I am happy to introduce this legislation, which I believe continues the program of social reforms that we as a government have undertaken since our election in 1998. I encourage all members of this Parliament to work with us to take this opportunity to move reconciliation with Aboriginal Tasmanians forward another small step. Although we come from different social and political backgrounds, I hope we can embrace this opportunity for change. Change that says so much about the progressive, tolerant, enlightened community that we represent and change that will go some small way towards repairing the hurt inflicted upon the Tasmanian Aboriginal community in times gone by.

As politicians, we are often asked to make decisions that will have far-reaching implications. Decisions that will affect people's lives and livelihoods. I put it to you that we, in our careers as parliamentarians, are unlikely to deal with any issue more important to the future of Tasmania than this. The issue of Aboriginal reconciliation is one that we must face up to and embrace. It is the right thing to do. It is the Tasmanian way. It is what our community expects of us as their elected representatives.

We can never change what has happened in previous generations, but we can send a signal that we genuinely want to build better relations with the Aboriginal community. There can be no better way of sending that message than handing back these parcels of important cultural land. It is a symbolic step - but it says so much.

I urge you to set aside any pre-established political positions on this legislation. I urge you to present a united front to give this bill the best possible chance of succeeding. I urge you to remember that the rest of Australia - and, indeed, the world - is watching and that we have a great opportunity to positively influence the reconciliation debate. And, finally, I urge you to find it in your hearts to do what is right. Do this, and the people of Tasmania will forever be indebted to you for your courage and compassion. I commend the bill to the House.

Government members - Hear, hear.

Applause from the Gallery .

[3.14 p.m.]

Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise that the Government has perfectly good intentions in this legislation. I should say up front that we have had a good look at the legislation and I do not think there would be much in there we could quibble about as to its mechanics. There is a deal of movement and change that has happened there; a lot of work has gone on as to how it would go forward and how the whole process would be managed. I think a lot of the issues that were raised have been negotiated and discussed through, and I think that is commendable, but as we have intimated, there is a fundamental flaw in the process going forward, and that is that nothing seems to have changed in your mind as to how you might go about actually achieving public support.

For all your emotional blandishments to us to stand up and do the right thing for all of Tasmania, and the rest of it, you have placed us in a position where we clearly have been saying to you and to everybody interested in this matter, and you will recall I said to you, Premier, you can say to the people of the Furneaux Group, 'If you get behind this process' - and we were not looking for 90 per cent support or anything like that; we would be damned pleased to get reasonable support - 'we will have unanimity in the House of Assembly and that would be a strong message to the Legislative Council'. Without wanting to put too fine a point on it, you have failed miserably in getting enough community support.

I do not know exactly what you did when you went over there, other than flying in with your chequebook, and we have made that point earlier today. But I do not know what else you did as a government with your members for Bass, and you as minister. How did you go over there? We would like to hear about that in your response to the second reading debate. What did you actually do? You tell us you have been over there twice. The second time was with the chequebook to swing over the numbers on the council. It is all about numbers for you and you just cracked the numbers, so you managed to sway them over and then you flew out again. What about the families on Flinders? What about the people over there who have these concerns? Did you go and visit them? Did you not call them together up at the north-west and say, 'Listen, this is a good thing for Tasmania to do, can we talk it through? Why won't you support this?'

From reports I had from my members for Bass, there was precious little of that going on, and that is what we expected of you as a government, to go and get community support, because Jim Bacon did understand that. I genuinely believe that when he failed with his last package before the House, he felt seriously bad about that and he said to this House, 'I didn't go about that properly, and next time we will'. There were a couple of pointers given during that process, and one very strong pointer was given by the Legislative Council. We are a bicameral system here. The upper House has to pass this legislation, so the upper House went off and held an inquiry and I think they did a pretty good job with that. I thought they were fairly hard-nosed about a few things, but they seemed to be pretty practical about how they would be impressed as to a process which would allow them to see there had been a red-hot go at getting community agreement to this.

I am not going to read them out now but there was a whole raft of things, including a demonstrable process that everybody would look at and follow, and have their say regarding the mechanics of it, how you would go about the engineering stuff and how you work out the financial stuff. I think implicit in that, too, was a step-by-step process laid out, but it did not include that you actually had to slam something through in a certain year. I think there had to be patience with the whole process, because if it is as important as you say it is, Premier - and I will remind you and I have said it before in the House and there is acknowledgement from the Aboriginal community that the Liberals do think slightly differently on that, and that is while land return can be most helpful for the reconciliation process, it is not inextricably linked to it. In other words, you can advance reconciliation without land handbacks; there are other ways to advance it as well.

But if it is that important then surely it is important enough to get it right, and sadly I think you have been moving to a different time frame than what a decent process might well have laid out for you. In fact I thought you did a sensible thing last year when you pulled the legislation. I thought, 'Beauty, we are back in town', because now is the time, now is the way to go over there to Flinders and work something out to get decent support for this legislation, but to my knowledge nothing has happened since you pulled that legislation before Christmas - and here we are now in March - other than you flew in with your chequebook, fronted that council and changed a few things.

That, sadly, does not meet the tests that we as a party had laid down for ourselves to consider this legislation. You did talk about it. I can see what is in your mind because in your second reading speech you talk about pre-established political positions. I would put to you that my pre-established political position was on the record. I said that there needed to be support and I was very confident that you would do that, but it is our judgment that to continue with the land return now under the current circumstances will shatter any mood for reconciliation in the Furneaux Group and therefore it would be wrong for us to support this bill today. I am not saying it should never happen; in fact I am on the record as saying if we cannot hand back Cape Barren, how on earth are we going to hand anything back? Give us some credit that while we might have read it wrong we have been over on Flinders Island talking to people and we attended a public meeting on Friday night and listened to the whole thing develop from a lot of people over there - families and individuals.

We are not saying that we would never support it. In fact I maintain the position that when we can actually achieve better support for it we would be delighted to support it, but obviously it will go out of this place today and off to the upper House and we will see what happens up there. So I want to place on the record that we, as Liberals, believe that we have a good record on reconciliation. There has been, over the last few years, reason for some destabilisation in relations between the Tasmanian Aboriginal community and the State Liberals but, as I said before in this place, we have moved very positively to bring that back to a decent situation where we can talk to each other regularly, and we do, and I have been able to explain some difficulties that we have as State Liberals. In fact the Tasmanian Aboriginal community has gone away, thought about it, and responded - sometimes in some terrific ways and, I believe, so have we.

There is a much better understanding of where we were and I know today this will be represented by the Government as being a shocking back-down and it has already been tagged by someone in this House that we are playing the race card and the rest of it, so if anybody thinks that I am feeling very comfortable standing here saying this, I am not at all. I am furious to be placed in a position where we -

Mr Lennon - Have you been rolled?

Mr HIDDING - The only rolling that has happened this week, mate, is the big spectacular roll that you have had.

Mrs Napier - It's called the Spirit III .

Mr HIDDING - But the State Liberals, I have to say, every single one of us has been moving forward on this process and my two Bass members have been over separately to the island on many occasions and they have expressed concern but also expressed hope that these matters can move forward and the council can work forward with things with the Government as well, but sadly that has not happened.

We do think that the Premier's methodology in seeking to divide and conquer the council with his chequebook has set this back irrevocably and just the other day when we became aware of this we thought, 'Hello, we'll see where this goes'. Then there was the public meeting to which my Bass colleague, Mrs Napier, agreed to go and she has reported to me the contents, the feelings and the mood of that meeting. She did so dispassionately; she took notes and spoke to people outside that meeting and elsewhere around Flinders that evening, so we are in receipt of very strong and sobering feedback on this matter. While saddened by being forced to take this position, we do in fact feel that we would be not living up to our own standards if we were to support this legislation today.

We do believe that the Liberals over the last number of years have set the pace in promoting reconciliation. The Groom Liberal Government pioneered 12 pieces of land to be returned in 1995. There were very comprehensive consultations about that which took place over a two-year period, and it went through this place and got broad community support. And of course I was very proud to be a member of the Rundle Government when we were one of the first in the nation to allow this House to formally apologise for the removal of Aboriginal children, and I will quote from that motion, which I recall very well:

'That this Parliament, on behalf of all Tasmanians, expresses its deep and sincere regrets at the hurt and distress caused by past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and homes, apologises to the Aboriginal people for those past actions, and reaffirms its support for reconciliation between all Australians.'

I would also point out that the code of race ethics that I had cause to dig out earlier in this debate - I had forgotten the actual words of it, but the final point 8 of this code of race ethics is that everybody in this House has agreed to promote reconciliation with indigenous Australians. So that is our task, our role and our commitment, and I will not be tagged by anyone in this House with any notion that we are not addressing our responsibilities towards reconciliation. It would be easy to tag me and the State Liberals today as lying across the tracks. I would simply say to that position that the case simply has not been made. The opportunity was there to make the case. There was plenty of time. The legislation was pulled at the end of November. Members of the Government have had four months to be actively working on Flinders Island. We will hear from my two members from Bass later whether they ever ran into the Labor Bass members or the Premier or anyone else over there actively selling this legislation, which is of course what they committed to do but do not appear to have done.

Now this Government says it has failed in its Tasmania Together targets. Well, if you have a course laid out for you by one House of a two-House system which says, 'Why don't you follow this course?', if that course is laid out for you and you have targets, why would you not follow the course and link the course to the targets? You say, 'This is how we join the dots. We want to hand back 56 000 hectares of land. Well, this is how we go about it. This is where it is, this is the process we will follow, and this is the timing for it.' Is that not true?

Ms Putt - Have you been around?

Mr HIDDING - What?

Ms Putt - We have had a process.

Mr HIDDING - Oh, have we? Right. Like the upper House process?

Ms Putt - Haven't you read the letters you have had from the Government?

Mr HIDDING - Yes, I have. You will have your say, but you dig out the upper House process and you tell me whether you think that has been followed, and I do not believe - well, I would be reflecting what the upper House might do and I do not want to do that. I do not want to encourage the upper House one way or another; they will need to make their own decisions and I wish them all the best with that. We set targets and limits for ourselves and track them very carefully. We have in fact been in the community on Flinders Island and Cape Barren Island and we do not believe that you have lived up to your consultation targets. So it is our position that this land return, under the current circumstances of the poor level of local public support, will certainly not advance the general reconciliation cause, which is what I have signed up to promote. I do not think it promotes it. In fact I think it will go backwards as a result. That is a sad message I bring to this House, obviously one that is not going to resonate with the two parties that are going to support it, but that is the State Liberals' view. This will not promote reconciliation. In fact it could set it backwards. That would be a very wrong thing to do. Therefore, it would be our recommendation that the bill be withdrawn and that we continue the process. I make the offer that if at any time the Premier wants to go to Flinders Island for a public meeting to talk this through with people, I will go with him. It is not something I want to duck away from, but this process has not happened. We have not gone to try to sell this to the locals. So on the basis that it does not promote reconciliation, this does not, at this point, meet with our support.

[3.32 p.m.]

Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to take a deep breath and try not to respond with anger to the previous contribution. My respect for the Aboriginal community and for their forbearance over centuries in relation to these attitudes gets greater by the moment. There is a legacy of dispossession and of most despicable treatment of a people by our forebears, which we are in a position to redress. There is a legacy of despair and ongoing disadvantage. All of us in Tasmania are diminished on a daily basis by our continuing failure to address and rectify these matters. This is no place for divisive politics. This is a time to remember and acknowledge how important their land is to Aboriginal people and how fundamental the return of their stolen lands is to our journey of healing in this State. I plead with the Liberal Party to support this return of lands. I have watched the process that has gone on in relation to the further return of lands, initiated when Labor came to power again in 1998. I watched the way that initial land package was denied to the Aboriginal community and so the ongoing hurt continued. I and the Greens have not forgotten. I know the Government has not forgotten and certainly the Aboriginal community knows only too well that what was brought to this House initially in this term was a diminished package from that original one. However, because of the churlish attitudes that remain in our community it was considered better to go for that and get it than to get nothing at all. 'Get' is not the right word. It should be 'return', to acknowledge that it has always been Aboriginal land; it is stolen, for crying out loud. It is not ours; it is theirs and we are trying to do the right thing, to ensure that that understanding is translated into law, that we would return a diminished package and hope to do better later. That package is now further diminished and yet we have people here in the Parliament saying that they cannot support it.

Some people simply do not want a resolution. There is no other explanation for some of the attitudes that persist. I do not think that a party that calls itself the official Opposition in this State -

Mr Hidding - No, the Queen called us that, actually.

Ms PUTT - Her Majesty's Opposition -

Mr Hidding - No, we are the State Opposition.

Ms PUTT - Whatever you want to call yourself to make yourself important, whatever it means to you -

Mr Hidding - No, that's what it is.

Ms PUTT - Yes, and it was in the name of empire that these lands were stolen in the first place, so if you want to laud the name of empire in relation to yourselves then go ahead.

Mr Hidding - What have you done to get public support for this? Zero.

Ms PUTT - I beg your pardon, probably a lot more than you.

A party such as yourselves should not be part of encouraging people who simply do not want a resolution and do not want to see lands returned because that is what it comes down to in the end.

We need to get a sense of perspective here. Generations and generations of Aboriginal people have suffered this loss and all the other traumas that have been visited upon them. They were not only dispossessed but also hunted down. It is not very long ago that we as a society began to recognise exactly what we had done. Still now we do not always recognise the ongoing legacy and all the ways in which that is manifested. Who can fail to be moved by the story we heard of Annette Peardon? Can you imagine that experience and not feel that, as a law-maker elected to this place, you would like to do something about it? How can you allow petty objections to overcome the principle? That is what I mean about getting a sense of perspective here.

It seems to me that the Liberals are miffed that Flinders Council agreed to the return of lands and so they are continuing a churlish and divisive campaign even though they do not have the Flinders Council in their corner.

Mrs Napier - That's the whole point.

Ms PUTT - That is the whole point, is it? Yes, I think that is the whole point too.

Mrs Napier - They don't want the legislation; they were forced to sign the MOU and they tried to at least get some resolution. They are not happy about doing it; they have been forced into it.

Ms PUTT - Well, poor Flinders Council; they get a whole lot of stuff. What do the Aboriginal community get? Not Goose Island - great, fantastic. If you want to go in to bat for Flinders Council on that basis then that is a shocking attitude, not for Flinders Council but in fact for other people on Flinders Island who clearly did not command the numbers on Flinders Council. The Greens are concerned about dropping Goose Island from the package. We understand why that has happened but let me put on record our very deep concern about that because it is on top of being forced to drop other areas. Remember, that package did not even include some places that are on the list from the Aboriginal community because they are clearly still places with strong connections. For example, what about the area in Mount William National Park, at the lighthouse, for example?

There is so much yet to do in this. Nothing is so important in Tasmania as making sure that we get on with it and get this right and find a way to move forward together. I went to Cape Barren Island, along with a number of other members of parliament; the Government kindly organised for us to go up there and talk to the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association and other people, and I am very pleased that that occurred. If you listened to the Leader of the Liberal Party you would have thought that no such trip had happened.

I had never been to Cape Barren Island before. I was really struck by the place and by the way Aboriginal people on the island talked about their feeling for country, their traditions, keeping the culture alive and those ongoing traditions, and that sense of belonging. It is a really important thing. I know that issues of access to foreshore and from the foreshore onto properties have been addressed. I was quite struck by an argument that was being mounted by a European owner of property on the island about the valuation of property. When I went and had a look at the property that person was talking about and saw how very down at heel it was compared to the Aboriginal community dwellings nearby, I realised that there was some other agenda at play.

In relation to Clarke Island, when I was Director of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust I campaigned for the nature reserve to be created on Clarke Island in recognition of the important value of those heathland species that are found on that portion of Clarke Island, so I have had some knowledge of those values. Indeed, when the reserve was created, in the speech I gave in Parliament I noted that there was still the outstanding matter of actually returning the land to the Aboriginal community.

In more recent years the young offenders program has been established on Clarke Island. We have always acknowledged what a great idea that was and we have very much supported that program being carried out in that area.

Some issues were brought to me by the conservation movement in relation to Clarke Island. You will understand that for Greens and conservationists the idea of revoking a nature reserve - which is the very highest category of reserve in Tasmania, a scientific reserve for very specific high priority values - is pretty challenging. I would like to thank the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre representatives and the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania representatives with whom I was able to discuss issues of the ongoing management of natural values on Clarke Island, and put clearly on the record that I trust them absolutely in the way they will manage that land. It was never our intention, nor would it be, to put prior conditions on an act which must fundamentally be unconditional. Our return of lands to the Aboriginal people in Tasmania must be unconditional.

I want to refer to the booklets that were produced - and I am sure other members of parliament received them - by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania on Cape Barren Island, Clarke Island - lungtalanana - and Goose Island, and to remind some members in this House of what we read and see in those booklets. In the booklet Cape Barren Island: Its Place in the Long History of Aboriginal Land Ownership , in the section 'The People and their Struggle' we read that -

'For thousands of years Aboriginal people had exclusive rights over the islands of Bass Strait that we now know as the Furneaux Group. Archaeological evidence shows occupation and permanent settlement persisted until about 6 500 years ago, when the waters rose.

Aboriginal names for Clarke Island - lungtalanana - and Cape Barren - truwana - were used by Tanalipunya, wife of Manalakina, indicating the north-east tribes well knew the islands were their territory.

We are all familiar with the way Aborigines were hunted off their lands, and imprisoned first at Wybalenna, then at Oyster Cover. Not all though. The destructive invaders did not imprison those Aborigines living in relationships with white people. It became evident that white sealers had "married" into the Aboriginal people, not the other way around.'

That is a very important and significant point.

'The bond with Aboriginal ancestry overwhelmed the introduced European culture and values.

By the 1840s, Gun Carriage (Vansittart), Woody, Tin Kettle, Clarke, Preservation, Badger, Long and Cape Barren islands become the new homes for a generation whose Aboriginal parents had been hunted from their traditional lands on mainland Tasmania.

All things associated with an Aboriginal community remained - Aboriginal physical features, elements of the old language, cultural practices and an understandable animosity to the whites. Each time Aborigines re-established links with land areas such as Chappell for mutton-birding or Badger or Cape Barren as a home, the authorities favoured white interests over Aboriginal needs.'

Is there perhaps a pattern that is still continuing today in some sections of our community, some represented this very day in this very Parliament on that side of the House?

'Mutton-birding, one form of cultural and economic subsistence of the tribal people, became the economic lifeline for the black community.

George Everett wrote on behalf of all Aboriginal mutton-birders to the Surveyor General in 1869, asking for exclusive rights to Chappell, and that an island be reserved to the Aborigines to preserve their life and identify. The Aboriginal people sometimes found allies, but not always motivated for the same reasons.

I could read the whole book but cannot do so. What I would like to do is point out that in this book there is also a section which deals with the continuing Flinders Island resentment in relation to Aboriginal inhabitants on Bass Strait islands and in relation to Aboriginal land transfer. There are photographs here which I am going to show the House, of some of the people denied ownership of Cape Barren Island. Here are the people. You see their photographs. Here is one page full of photographs of Aboriginal people denied ownership of Cape Barren Island. Turn over: two more pages of photographs of Aboriginal people denied ownership of Cape Barren Island and more photographs on the next two pages. It is a very distressing history that we need to address. But we are in a position to take responsibility. Surely that is more important than anything else at this point in time.

Then, of course, there is the history in relation to Clarke Island as well and how you could walk all the way from Tasmania to Victoria at one time. About how the island was still heavily timbered in 1828 and the history of people living on that island over time. It is just so important that we act together to return these lands.

I want to conclude by going back to that business of there being a need for a sense of perspective here. A sense of perspective and to be principled in the decisions that we make. Earlier today we had a condolence motion for the victims of the Boxing Day tsunami and I spoke then about how it was brought home to so many of us by the way that people's lives and communities were ended so quickly without any warning. We recognise how important it is to be here now, to do what needs to be done today and not to put it off and to be the person we should be now and take responsibility for what we ought to do now. All of us in Tasmania are diminished for as long as we fail to return those stolen lands to their owners. The injustices of the past must be addressed. The Greens wholeheartedly support the Premier in what he said today when he said that we can never change what has happened in previous generations but we can send a signal that we genuinely want to build better relations with the Aboriginal community. There can be no better way of sending that message than handing back these parcels of important cultural land. It is a symbolic step but it says so much. We do have to find it in our hearts to do what is right and we have to do it today. The Greens wholeheartedly support this bill and we do urge all other members of the Parliament to vote for it as well.

[3.54 p.m.]

Ms HAY (Bass) - Mr Speaker, I, like the Leader of the Greens, am choosing not to respond to the contribution of the speaker before her because, simply put, the contribution is not worth a response. Today we are discussing the Tasmanian Government's proposal to hand back crown land to its rightful custodians. I am choosing in my speech to say, hand the land back rather than transfer, because it is not giving something new to people for the first time it is giving it back to the rightful owners. I believe this will - I am sorry, I did not expect to weep. I really do believe this bill will pass the two Houses and get the royal assent. I feel it is a sad day that we are not all together in this House hoping for the same thing for all Tasmanians. I will stick to my speech now.

On many occasions, I have had the chance to speak with people who will be directly or indirectly affected by this handback. Last year, I had the opportunity, along with other members of this and the upper House, to listen to the opinions of the members of the Cape Barren Island community on this land handback. Our brief was to be sensitive to the history of the community and that during the process of consultation we should seek to understand the viewpoint of the local community members. I believe that our meeting successfully achieved this goal.

There are, of course, always two sides to every argument, and I would like to address the argument that is frequently used by those who do not agree with the proposed land handback, that is if Cape Barren and Clarke islands belong to the Aboriginal community then surely all of Tasmania does, in fact all of Australia. This would mean that if the decision was based on the argument that what was once should be again, then all of Australia would be returned to the original inhabitants. This is clearly oversimplifying matters, and even a form of scare tactics used by those who should and do know better to worry those who do not.

I think the meaning behind this handback is what needs to be focused on. The proposed handback is symbolic of all Australian land, land now inhabited by 20 million people of all creeds and colours being returned to its traditional owners. All land is important to Aboriginal people in ways non-indigenous people are slowly beginning to be educated about, but perhaps would never truly feel to the degree that Aboriginal people do. But Cape Barren Island and Clarke Island is land which is so significant to Tasmania's Aboriginal community, and now is the right time. The longer we as a government and as a State wait to return this land, this land which is so precious to the traditional owners and which holds such strong links for today's Aboriginal community, the harder it will be to ever bridge the gap or to ever achieve reconciliation with the people wronged by the loss of their land. This is our opportunity to take a few of the many steps which need to be taken in that process.

Some will say that this is complex now, but we all know that just because something is hard it does not mean it should not be done, and if something is right it does not matter how difficult it is, and it is right. These lands, these islands will shine as beacons across Australia and across the world as symbols of hope and justice, hope not only for the Tasmanian Aboriginal communities, but also all Tasmanians and all Australians. Hope for our future and the accepting, recognising and embracing of all cultures for our future generations. They will be beacons of justice which do not excuse the past, but which symbolise the recognition of our past and help us to move on.

To the Aboriginal community of these islands, the land return will mean not only this, but will offer the opportunity and the confidence to move forward, assisting in the growth and enrichment of this ancient culture and allowing the elders and the older members of the community to pass on their memories and their wisdom of the place in which they live and their ancestors lived. At present, the Aboriginal community is stilted, caring for the land, and ministering and managing the islands' infrastructure without any guarantee that this will continue, without any certainty for the future, without the certain knowledge that this will not all be taken away from them again. How many of us would give their time, dedication, heart and soul to something that could be taken away, something that we felt in our bones belonged to us, connected us to our ancestors and spoke to us in private and significant ways, and which were the source of community and a link to our past?

This is our opportunity to give something back to the rightful owners - land - and by this word I do not indicate land in the sense of the definition you will find in a dictionary, unless perhaps Auntie Ida wrote that dictionary. I mean spirituality, family, home, safety, the past and the future, survival and culture. This is our opportunity to give certainty for the future, a sense of ownership, but not ownership of the land. Aboriginal people do not want to own the land, but have faith that this land is the community's to work with, to live with. It is not a sense of the community owning the land, but rather that nobody ever will. The islands would be what they once were: places to share and enjoy. Some members of this House will have experienced a longing to see where they came from. Some will have Irish, Scottish or English heritage and may have returned to those countries and felt the stirrings of a memory which is not living but from somewhere deep within, a sense of familiarity and rightness and recognition that this is where you and your people came from, even if you do not express it like that.

If you have Irish heritage, you may have once stood on a beach in the big distant south-west, or thought about your relatives being forced, perhaps against their will as convicts, or because of lack of opportunity, or food, or because of an adventure-seeking frame of mind, to leave the place and travel to the other side of the world, perhaps here to Tasmania. You may have had a Guinness or listened to a fiddle player in a pub, read a book by James Joyce or thought about what it all meant to you. If any of you have experienced that little bit of connection with your own culture and heritage, put yourself in the place of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.

For many, Cape Barren and Clarke islands are their Ireland, their Scotland. It is in these places that they will revive their culture allowing their young people to feel at first hand, to burn with the connection to an ancient past, many times older than the past many others may connect to. These places will see a cultural revival as the community undertakes its own cultural events and passes on the traditions of their ancestors, whether it be cooking, celebration, hunting, anything. It will all be possible once again.

Today is our opportunity, today we have the opportunity to redress the past. Today is our opportunity to bring something real, something tangible, to our present efforts to reconcile the past for all Tasmanians. Today is our opportunity to create the kind of future that I believe we all want, one that rights past wrongs, that does not stick its head in the sand, nor runs for cover when things get difficult, a future that embraces difference yet unites us all, a future of pride, tolerance, solidarity and of support for one another.

Fellow members and people of Tasmania, today we have this opportunity and today we have this responsibility.

[4.02 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - I congratulate the member who has just spoken because I do believe that she reflects very strongly the importance of land to the Aboriginal community but also the sense of guardianship and that is a view of land not only held by the Aboriginal community but also by many of the islander community who are caught in this very difficult process of looking at the means by which the return of lands can occur.

In fact I stand as the member for Bass but also as a member of parliament quite disappointed that we are not able, at this stage, to agree to the land handover of both Clarke Island and Cape Barren Island. The debate is not so much about Clarke Island; I think Clarke Island for a whole variety of reasons, particularly because of the success of the youth program that is being developed by the Aboriginal community there, does not create any difficulty for anyone as being a piece of land that can successfully be handed over to the Aboriginal community, not so much to the islander Aboriginal community in the Furneaux Group but particularly to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.

However, matters are much more complicated whether we wish to address them or not with the Cape Barren Island community because it is an islander community that we are dealing with. It is particularly linked to nine Aboriginal women. There may have been more but it is linked to at least nine Aboriginal women recorded in the archives who predominantly married sealers who had moved there to live in the 1800s. The islander community has grown and evolved from these and that is not to say that other members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, many of whom live in Tasmania do not see Cape Barren Island as being their homeland too. But the complication is associated with the handover of the Cape Barren Island landscape to ALCT and I suppose what is interpreted as local management by the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal community.

When I went with a number of other parliamentarians last year to visit Cape Barren Island, I went there hoping that we would find in the Cape Barren Island community an acceptance that this could be done, and done with cooperation. When I arrived there I found that the very reason the previous legislation had been withdrawn was still there. There was still quite a division amongst people who live on the island as to whether this could be done in such a way that they might still be able to enjoy the peace and harmony and that which they value about living in the Cape Barren Island community. Some of them might express it simply by saying, 'It is working well now, there is peace and harmony within the community, why should we change that, why should we destroy that?' I asked them, 'Why do you think that would change? What is going to be terribly different? You will still have your own private property, you will still have access to the community yourself.'

But I have to say that what is alarming me, whether I speak to local police, to people who are actually living on the island, or to others who know of people who are living on the island, is the fear and intimidation that is occurring within that community. That is scary, really scary. I am not blaming one side or the other. All I am saying is that there is a social uproar in the Cape Barren Island community, brought about by the debate as part of the process of land transfer that we are discussing now. I do not believe that this side of the House could say that we are willing to agree to this legislation because the local community are in the midst of all of this. I am not talking about Clarke Island - I do not have any great difficulties with that at all - but Cape Barren Island is where a community already lives, and a number of them are the mincemeat in this solution, in part because many of them would see it as their island being handed, if you like, to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. And the islanders themselves do not see themselves as just being Aboriginals, do not see themselves as being white people, they see themselves as islanders, and we have to find a way by which we can address that so that there will be peace and cooperation on the island as we move towards a successful transition, if we do. I thought we would be able to do that, and I would still like to think that we could move in that direction.

Mrs Jackson - How?

Mrs NAPIER - Well, that is the question, is it not and, at least from the Legislative Council's point of view, if you had at least had a look at the process that they suggested, we might have been able to get to that point. On the preparation of draft criteria by government, it would appear that the Premier has said to the Council, 'We have criteria'. They said, 'What are your criteria?' You did not tell them. The Legislative Council said they wanted independent expert and fair testing of criteria through a rigorous process of assessment such as that as managed by the RPDC. You did not do that. They wanted a recommendation to the Government by an independent expert body. You did not do that. Approval by Parliament of the Government's preferred criteria and the recommended criteria should then be applied to all future applications for the transfer and management of land. You did not do that. And there was not an agreed process by which we could move on this matter, and for people such as, unfortunately, the Leader of the Greens to get up and suggest that people who oppose this are petty-minded, well, can I tell you in the first place you have already called 303 people on the Flinders Island community supposedly petty-minded. I do not know if you are aware, but there was an open petition that was circulated amongst the islander communities, both islands: 355 people were game enough to put their name and their address on that survey, and they had to indicate whether they were for or against the proposed transfer of Goose Island, Clarke Island and Cape Barren Island to ALCT. Now 355 people signed it; 303 were against it, 34 of whom were Aboriginal. There were 37 for it, 27 of whom were Aboriginal, five of whom were children, and there were 15 people who were undecided, including one Aboriginal. This indicates that there is not community agreement and consensus to the fact that this bill will result in reconciliation, importantly amongst the very communities that need to be part of this process.

Further to that, rather than taking up the opportunity I had to meet Mary and Frederik, I was invited to go to the meeting that was held on Flinders Island on Friday night. Eight-seven people turned up, not including the people who were the independent chair, the scribes and people like myself. There were no people there from the Cape Barren Island community. When the question was asked, 'Why?', we were not quite sure why the Cape Barren Island community did not have a representative there, but a number of people indicated that people who were opposed to this current legislation proceeding had received threats to themselves personally and threats that when they got back onto their island their house would not be there; it would be burnt down. So they did not come to the meeting. There are threats and accusations; there is a real social problem there. That is why the Flinders Council said, 'If you insist on persisting with this legislation, at least do this'; that is where that MOU came from. Time and time again the Flinders Council had said, 'We do not agree with this legislation. We do not agree at this stage with the transfer of lands', because of all the problems they were seeing occurring and that they were hearing about. If you want to ask about the threats, go and ask the local police about it. Go and ask about what is really going on on Cape Barren Island. These are the very people about whom, unfortunately, the Premier said on page 2 of his second reading speech:

'The importance of Cape Barren Island to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community goes far beyond those who now live on Cape Barren Island.'

But I have to tell you, they are not irrelevant. He said:

'There are many Aboriginal people who live on mainland Tasmania who have a very strong association with the Furneaux Group and indeed call it home.'

True.

'But as a government promoting unity and cooperation over division, we need to listen to other sections of the broader community on this issue - and we have done it.'

Well, I would have to say that two wrongs do not make a right. I do not believe that we should be disregarding what is happening to many people on the Cape Barren Island community and the concerns of the Flinders Island community over what is happening to Cape Barren Island. I do not think that allows us to say, 'Oh, they'll get over it. If need be, they can move elsewhere'. That is not acceptable; that is not what reconciliation is about. That is the disappointment we feel in having to get up today, in dealing with this bill, knowing the conflagration that exists in those islander communities.

I went and listened to what people were saying at that meeting on Friday night. We were told by the council that as far as the Premier was concerned, the land package was not negotiable; it was going to go ahead anyhow. We had people such as the Deputy Mayor, who was one of the four people developing an MOU. What they were saying was, 'We don't want this legislation to go ahead, but if you insist, at least address these issues'. This is recognising that the Premier had written to them on 23 February asking, 'Tell me what your issues are, including your infrastructure issues'. When that MOU came back it said, 'These issues are going to be addressed only if you, the Flinders Council, agree with us and sign this MOU'. Well, if that is not a weapon being held over your head, I do not know what is.

What the islander community was saying at this meeting was that they wanted due process. They wanted a proper process. Sure, there would be some people who would never agree with it; that is all right, that is always going to be so, but not the kind of division that currently exists on the Furneaux islands. Carol Cox said, 'We were basically in a cleft stick; we had nowhere to go.' They were going to do it anyhow. So why couldn't we at least minimise the damage that was going to occur, not only on Cape Barren Island but also to the communities - things like the quality of the roads on Cape Barren Island and the social issue? What is the State Government going to do to assist in dealing with some of the social issues that have arisen, very unfortunately, in the Cape Barren Island community? What about the grave sites?

A number of the initiatives that are included in the MOU I think are very good; they are very important things to do and I do not disagree with elements of that. I do disagree that those issues should have been built into an MOU that were conditional upon the legislation going through. They were bludgeoned into it. Those issues should have been looked at anyhow. If you were working for reconciliation, then the removal of Goose Island from the package was one step towards achieving it. There was the issue of assistance in the care of roads and some of the issues associated with support for the island community. They were all good and important issues to be addressed, but not as a buy-out for support of the reconciliation package.

Similarly, we had Ms Ireland, who said the council was not in a position to bargain so much. She said that many times the council had told the Government they were not willing to agree because they did not believe that the current package would result in real reconciliation, which the Liberals have always argued has to be fundamental to whatever steps you take. She said, 'Well, we said if it is going to happen, then let us at least make it liveable. Let us address the Goose Island issue, the roads, the social issue, the self-management issue, to make sure that quite clearly it must be the Cape Barren Island community who are in real control of Cape Barren'. Because it is a very isolated community they have to deal with access and support issues. They have to look at how they deal with the high level of visitors who are likely to come to the Cape Barren Island community as part of the fact that they recognise Cape Barren Island as being a significant homeland to the Aboriginal community and how people, who are islanders, who have lived on those islands for many years, can deal with that. That is not say that is not to be addressed. But I think it is a much more complicated issue to be planned for rather than just dumping the legislation on these people and saying, 'Get used to it, it is going to happen, too bad.' I have already made my point about the $2 million so-called compensation or buy-out package that was being talked about.

Councillor Stephen Mason said, 'Look, it was my view that the transfer of land was unlikely to further reconciliation.' So he said, the point was, you either dig your heels in or you try to get the best deal for the Furneaux Group. I wrote these notes down as I was listening to what people were saying. He said the Government had the numbers. They said it was not negotiable, it was going to happen anyhow. So he said, 'We are between a rock and a hard place. We had been basically bludgeoned into it, so of course we signed the MOU, because at least we would get something that was liveable and reasonable. We could live with it, but it would have been much better if we had been able to get those things agreed to but also address some of the issues on Cape Barren Island so that we could all, quite happily, support it and make sure that it was going to go through this House with the support of everyone.' But unfortunately the process was derailed. No-one looked at the social process on Cape Barren Island. No-one looked at how you could work with the Furneaux people rather than bludgeoning them into it and saying, 'It is going to happen anyhow; get used to it and try to make the best of it.'

There were so many other comments that were made on that night. There were of course some people there who supported the legislation regardless and they put forward their arguments, clearly and well, and that was important. But at the meeting, they put forward a number of motions and, bar two, there was support for this motion: that this meeting expresses its condemnation of the State Government in its deliberate attempts to divide our community, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. A further motion: 'that this meeting opposes the current Aboriginal Lands Amendment Bill 2004', and a further motion: that this meeting does not support any land transfer to ALCT in the Furneaux Group.

I can see where the council has been put in a pretty difficult position. As I said to them, 'I came over here thinking that the Flinders Council had agreed because they'd signed the MOU that you now supported the legislation', and they said, 'Well, no. What we've said is we still don't agree with this legislation going through, however if you insist, then we would want these conditions in the MOU to be met'. That is what we are saying. That is no way to pursue reconciliation. I must admit, having been to that meeting, I came back and I was really disappointed because I think that things have gone backwards in the Cape Barren Island community and the Furneaux Group. I was really disappointed about that, because I think we had been saying that if the Flinders Council supports this legislation then it would seem that the island generally supports it and we will happily support it. There will always be people who will not support it, that is fine, but the point is when I became aware of the open petition where the clear majority of people are against it -

Mr Booth - But the council supports it.

Mrs NAPIER - No, they do not. You go and listen to them, you go and talk to them. They were given no option but to agree to an MOU. They were bludgeoned into it. If someone holds a gun to your head, are you going to tell them to go ahead and shoot? That is where they were caught; they were caught in between. Unfortunately there was the bad-man attitude of the Premier who went over there to buy a deal, and to presumably buy a peace as he often done before, like buying out a governor who did not do a very good job, or getting his racing reforms through by basically saying to the racing people, 'Boy, have I got a deal for you. I've got as many millions as you might consider that you need to be able to get you to agree to our tri-code proposals'.

The point is that you do not have to get your way by doing it that way. The process was quite missing, and I was very much taken by the views of the meeting, and people were distressed that they had basically been put in this position. They were angry that the council had signed the MOU, but they could also see why the council signed it. It was not in the sense of reconciliation, it was because the Government really gave them no option.

I do not think that we have yet managed to find a process that would enable us to progress this particular land issue. It is really easy for us to sit -

Member - For you.

Mrs NAPIER - I tell you what, you live in the Furneaux island community, an isolated community, and have it done to you. How would you like it if land was being handed over on the Domain; how would you like it if it was the local park down at the local community? These people live in an isolated community and they need to be able to get on with one another. I just think we need to get back to the process whereby we deal with how we can maximise the reconciliation benefits for the islander community as much as for the broader Tasmanian Aboriginal community as well. It is not fair to sell out the islanders; it is not fair to do that. You might say, 'In 20 or 30 years they'll have forgotten about this', but it is not fair to the kids now who are going to have to live as part of it.

Mrs Jackson - How did they get onto the islands in the first place? Was that an MOU? No!

Mrs NAPIER - No, the Aboriginal women actually came onto the island with the sealers. I am not going to get into that part of the debate.

Mrs Jackson - What about the people at Wybalenna, how did they get onto the island?

Mrs NAPIER - What I am saying to you is that I think technically the bill is good. From what I can see it has covered off some of the really important issues. I think taking Goose Island out was a good conciliatory move, but what I am saying is that I am disappointed, I guess, with the way in which the whole process has been tainted by the bagman approach of the State Government. We have not yet paid sufficient attention to the process of what is going on inside the Cape Barren Island community. I do not have the solution to that, but to describe anyone who does not agree with this particular piece of legislation at this stage as 'petty-minded' is wrong, because they are not. They are people who actually live in the community, and Ms Putt called them 'petty-minded' -

Mrs Jackson - I called you 'petty-minded' and 'mealy-mouthed'.

Mrs NAPIER - You called anyone who opposes it -

Mrs Jackson - I didn't; I said you were.

Mrs NAPIER - Mrs Jackson, I look forward to your contribution at another time but there is no way that you can indicate that this side of the House has in any way attempted to influence the decisions that were proceeding. We actually were working on the premise that we would be able to support this legislation but we find that there is so much division amongst people within the Furneaux Group that it would not be within the bounds of reconciliation for us to support this piece of legislation, especially as it applies to Cape Barren Island. I know my Leader and my colleagues are all disappointed that we have arrived at this point.

We have come back after Christmas and are now into March to find that something has gone terribly wrong in the way in which the process is being pursued in attempting to get support for at least some measures within this legislation, because I would have to say that two wrongs do not make a right.

I do acknowledge that many people within the Tasmanian Aboriginal community do regard Cape Barren Island as being their homeland. I do recognise and support the very good program that is run by the Aboriginal community on Clarke Island. As I said, I do not have any great difficulty about that; my concern is about what is happening with the existing residents on Cape Barren Island. That is what has me particularly concerned. We need to find a way to work through to that but chequebook diplomacy is certainly not a way to achieve that.

Having said that, the Premier did indicate in his second reading speech that the transfer of further lands was not to be pursued by this current Government in this term of government. I must admit that the Furneaux island community understood that the Premier had made a commitment that there would be no further land transfers under your Government. I know governments can change and another Premier might come along and that is another government, and they are realistic enough to understand that. But you have made the promise about this particular Government - does it apply just to you as Premier? Does it apply to any successive Labor government? The people on Furneaux would certainly like a clarification of that.

In relation to the fishing zones issue, that was very much caught up in the Goose Island question, but it might be possible to provide us with an update on that. You might say, 'No, we have to wait until the Living Marine Resources Management Act review is complete and we need to deal with it then'. If that is your wish, then that might be so. It would appear that in relation to compensation for improvements to leaseholds, you are saying that any improvement that has been made by existing leaseholders needs to be negotiated within the first six months, not at the time at which they may be deciding to continue a lease or not. I just wanted to clarify the timing on that particular issue.

Before Christmas I would have thought I would be able to stand up and support this piece of legislation. I thought that might be so, but I have been talking with and listening to the people of the Furneaux islands, and I was aware of the division that existed in the Cape Barren Island community. I had hoped that might have been overcome in the form of the agreements being made between ALCT and the Cape Barren Island community, but it does not seem to have solved the problem there. I became very aware of the anger that existed in the Flinders Island community about what has gone on this year in relation to dealings with the Flinders Council, but also the genuine concerns, I think, that other ordinary members of the Flinders Island community have.

[4.31 p.m.]

Mr BOOTH (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all I would like to echo the words of the Speaker when he opened Parliament this morning, that we recognise the Mouheneener people as the traditional owners of this land. I am very proud to be part of a parliament that is about to pass, I hope, this legislation that in some very small way attempts to redress the terrible wrongs that have been done in the past. That is not possible, but certainly it behoves this generation to attempt to do something like that. I urge all members in this House and in the Legislative Council to recall those words recognising the traditional owners, a forgotten people, and that we do not simply mouth those words as platitudes and do nothing about them. It is time for our actions to match our words, to commit ourselves as members of parliament to do the right thing and to show leadership, which is what this is all about. It is way past time that leadership was shown. I was extremely disappointed that the previous legislation put up by the late Premier, Jim Bacon, was rejected by the upper House. I would urge them to accept fully this land handback package which, as I said, will go a very small way towards starting that process or continuing the journey that we all have to travel together, as black and white people and as members of a global community, to ensure that we are able to be part of a community in the future.

I will not speak long. I would like to thank for their contributions all of the members who have spoken in favour of this particular bill. I must say that I concur with every word that has been spoken by the Premier. It is a rare moment that I will get up in this House and congratulate the Premier, an extremely rare moment, but in this instance he is absolutely right and I commend him for having the courage and determination - and the Labor Party as well - for being prepared to introduce this legislation, particularly against an onslaught of what I would regard as racist attacks on the Government and on people who are trying to advocate for this progress, an attempt to polarise the community and to unfortunately gain electoral advantage by opposing what is the just and right thing to do. I would also like to congratulate the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens, Peg Putt, for her contribution. Certainly that reflects my personal beliefs. I particularly thank Ms Kathryn Hay for her personal and very emotional and well-delivered heartfelt contribution towards moving forward with this debate.

I have to say that I am also equally appalled that people in this Chamber would stand up and oppose this move towards reconciliation, that they would allow themselves to be dragged down in this vortex of polarisation and disharmony when there is this opportunity for them to be statesmen, to set aside those political game plays and point-scoring and recognise the pain that that inflicts on not only the members of the Aboriginal community but on the white community as well. You have been elected and you should show leadership in your communities to redress this awful reality that has occurred in the past. I will not pretend that I even understand what it is like to be an Aboriginal person; I cannot. My forebears were not poisoned with arsenic, my grandmother raped, my children stolen from me; I was not dispossessed of my lands, hunted down like vermin, taunted and abused for generations, dispossessed of everything I owned, including our culture. How can any white person understand that? After all, we are the recipients of the spoils of plunder committed by a previous generation which we would now think to be uncaring and unenlightened. We have no excuse to allow ourselves to continue to support that disgraceful period in history. It is time for us to turn back and look at what we have done as a people, as a white race, to the Aboriginal nation, not only in Tasmania but throughout the whole of Australia. It will always be a blight on our history and a blight on this generation if we do not start moving down that journey together.

Let us make no mistake: we stand on stolen land, every one of us who enjoys this great country of Australia which we have so devastated in 200 short years as an invading nation. We have plundered the landscape, treated the land with contempt, stripped its resources and lived off the fat of the land that evolved over the millennia, a history that goes back 40 000-80 000 years since time began. The Aboriginal people have managed that landscape and have handed it to us in such an extraordinary condition. When I say 'hand it' to us, I mean we have stolen from those people because of their management. That is why Tasmania is what it is today, still a beautiful country albeit being massively damaged by us. I think that is another thing that this House needs to face, the reality of what we are doing to this country and not just mouthing false platitudes about the whole thing.

So I would say to all members of this House, it does behove us to move forward with this very small step, to debate without fear or favour, to show leadership and to try to redress things with the goodwill of the Aboriginal people, who are big-hearted and warm-hearted enough to say to the white people in this community that they will move forward together with us. This is an ingredient for reconciliation and we will never be able to move forward unless we take this opportunity to move to reconciliation.

So once again I say to you all that this is an opportunity in this House. You are part of history. We owe it to your children, to the Aboriginal children of the future, to the communities of the future, to take this step forward into the future and to do the right thing. It is the very least that this House can do and it will be a gift to this generation and to the next generation yet unborn. I am very proud to be able to stand here today, as a member of Bass, and say without fear or favour that this is the right thing to do. Popular or unpopular, sometimes we have to make decisions that are based on truth, justice and the right thing to do and not based on whether it is going to be electorally popular.

I thank the Government for bringing this bill forward. I thank the Aboriginal people for giving me the opportunity to be part of this debate and I hope that the upper House passes this legislation as well.

[4.39 p.m.]

Mr BARTLETT (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, when I entered this place as a member a little under a year ago, a number of other members for whom I have some respect told me that, while it was tough and stressful at times and there were long hours and so on, there would be times as a member of parliament when you felt that you were part of something, part of history, part of something greater than the sum of the parts that make it up, something that genuinely made a practical and constructive contribution to the lives of other Tasmanians, and something that also perhaps made a grand gesture or at least was a significant symbol that we as a people are heading in the right direction. I believe that the passage of this bill today will be one such moment. I am deeply grateful that I can be here and speak in support of it. I am only saddened, of course, that some in this House cannot find it in their hearts to learn and understand the cultural and historical issues at hand here, because surely if they had taken the time to learn and understand cultural and historical issues they would not able to vote against this legislation.

Can I take the opportunity to also congratulate previous speakers, including the Premier, whose second reading speech was one of the most significant, weighty and important speeches that I have heard in the place since becoming a member. It was every bit as moving and important as Keating's Redfern speech in the 1990s - in a Tasmanian context. I also extend congratulations to my other parliamentary colleagues who have spoken in support of this bill.

I have only once had the opportunity to visit Cape Barren Island, on a side trip from my only trip to Flinders Island. That spectacular coastline and piece of environment does not leave you easily, though, once you have visited it. On that occasion, I had the good fortune or happenstance of trying to immerse myself and understand a bit about the local history, as one does as a traveller. I purchased a CD, which I play to this very day on a reasonably regular basis, called Born on Ol' Cape Barren by the Island Coes. I says this because I believe the music on this CD, and the music that is at the heart of part of the Cape Barren Island people, goes to the heart of much of the argument in favour of the handback of this land.

Of course indigenous communities on Cape Barren Island have been affected by colonising cultures almost as long as the mainland, but their relative isolation has produced a distinct and unique cultural product, I guess, and cultural inheritance. Being a white fellow, of course, with only a basic grasp of the history of Cape Barren Island - I do not want to offend those in the Gallery and others who may be reading this who know much more than I do, of course - I wanted to use in my speech today the example of this CD, which has deeply moved me in the time that I have owned it, as an example of the cultural significance of this place. Of course, the thousands of years of connection that exists between the Aboriginal community and this land should be enough to convince us, I would have thought. Sometimes, closer and more obviously emotional connections such as music and other cultural expressions are slightly more tangible, I suppose, for us white fellows, and might actually go some way towards expressing or understanding some of the deeply held feelings that the Aboriginal people have about the land.

As I said, while I am not an expert on Cape Barren history, in doing some research from a range of publications, including some old ATSIC material that I had access to, I understand that from 1912 to 1954 Cape Barren Island was an Aboriginal reserve, one of two main reserves in Tasmania - the other being Flinders, of course. However, the Aboriginal people had been visiting and staying on Cape Barren Island for thousands of years before that. The first Europeans came in the early nineteenth century to hunt seals and whales. They also, as we already heard in a number of speeches, raided Aboriginal communities on the northern Tasmanian mainland, kidnapping Aboriginal women, who became reluctant wives, servants and workers on the remote island. This was the beginning of a post-colonial Cape Barren community, and its lifestyle was a mix of both Aboriginal and European ways.

While I do not want to ignore the thousands of years of history and visitation to the island that came before that, I want to refer to this period because, while these relationships were of course exploitative in nature, the seal hunters played and shared their Irish and Yorkshire folk music with the locals. Somewhere along the way there was a sort of North American folk-type fiddle, and the addition of local bluegrass fiddle and so on, and really Cape Barren music evolved out of that. Halfway through the last century, in the 1950s and 1960s, I understand, the main exponents of this music type was a group called the Brown Brother Boys, the core of which was Les, Athol, Dennis and Norman Brown.

But over the course of that last half of the century, due to a whole range of factors, of course during the music's peak, it seems from the documents that I have read anyway the entire community contributed in some way or another as music and singing were the primary social activities on the island and the regular local dances often involved a stage full of locals with four or five people playing each instrument: violin, guitar, ukulele, accordion, squeeze box, mandolin and banjo. It is a very colourful music form. Percussion was rare but also included the spoons on occasions.

After people were moved from Cape Barren, however, the Brown Boys played mainland gigs here and there I understand for about 10 years. When Les Brown passed away in 1974, Cape Barren music as it had existed and had evolved as an art form only really continued on a handful of cassettes, though undisputedly in the hearts and minds of the Cape Barren mob.

In 1988, I understand two proponents got up on stage with Cape Barren music in this particular style at the Putalina or Oyster Cove festival south of Hobart and sang a few Cape Barren songs. I have read that a small group of elders cried at the strength of the memories of both the music and the strong, proud community that they recalled that this music obviously evoked in them. This performance developed into a project to record this music and keep it alive. The Island Coe CD to which I referred earlier and which is the main content of my speech today and their CD Born on Ol' Cape Barren has done just that and I would encourage any member who wants to feel and more deeply understand Cape Barren people to perhaps listen to this CD.

It is music that in part moves me to make this speech today. The Premier said earlier that we cannot change history but we certainly can change the future. That is the primary role that we have, as leaders of this State - and we are all leaders as members of this Parliament. My question across the Floor is, 'Where are the progressives in your ranks? Where is this fresh new approach?'. I think I know who the conservatives are because a few of them are here at the moment but it saddens me deeply to see that the young progressives on that side of the House have succumbed to the miserly, miserable, derisory approach to this legislation.

So we can conclude that John Howard's narrow view of the world and our history is dominant not only in the Federal Liberal Party but also in its Tasmanian little sibling. I say 'little' because it is a small, insignificant and miserable response when they had the opportunity to be bold and bright leaders.

When they should be talking of leadership, of course, they are hiding behind small-minded pettiness and I use that word advisably. When they should be taking their section of the community with them, they are pandering to the lowest common denominator. They should be asking, 'How can we help this important debate in the community?'. Instead they are asking, 'What's in it for us?'.

So while this is a great day to be a member of this Parliament, it is also a sad day. Be that as it may, I choose to celebrate this legislation and the small steps that it represents towards true reconciliation and I thank those in the Gallery who will be reading this later for allowing me the great honour of representing them in this way, in this place, on their land, and with that I support the bill.

[4.48 p.m.]

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - I said in the matter of public importance earlier today that unfortunately the Premier's attempts to promote reconciliation by use of the taxpayers' chequebook has put the issue of reconciliation and Aboriginal land transfer as part of that back at least five years.

The State Liberals support reconciliation but reconciliation by its very definition is supposed to bring communities together, not divide them further. Unfortunately the Government's attempt so far in relation to attempting to reconcile the differences that exist in the local community have been woefully inadequate.

Let me first of all put some personal observations on the record. Firstly, I, like the rest of my Liberal colleagues, support the concept of reconciliation. In fact it was, as most in this place are aware, a Liberal government, the Groom Liberal Government, who pioneered land return in this State 12 years ago in 1993, when the Premier of the day, Ray Groom, issued a reconciliation paper for discussion. Then in 1995 the Groom Government transferred 12 parcels of land to the Aboriginal community.

It is worth noting the Hansard records of that year and also the press cuttings of that time which clearly demonstrate that, because of the comprehensive consultation process that occurred in the two years prior to the land handover, this transfer was able to occur and be carried out successfully. Tony Rundle, the Liberal Premier, a few years ago was also one of the first State leaders to formally apologise for the removal of Aboriginal children. I will not quote his words because I know that they have been added to the Hansard today.

We have always maintained that we would positively consider land return proposals where there was local community support and it was in the interests of reconciliation and preferably addressed recommendations made by the Legislative Council Select Committee. What concerns me is that those principles have not been met. Furthermore, let me also say that whilst I have spoken personally and corresponded with others on the island itself, I also met with Michael Mansell and discussed this issue along with other issues late last year. Whilst not wishing to digress from the legislation before us, it is worth pointing out that, Premier, whilst you have stood in this place today and placed on the record your personal support for reconciliation and your Government's desire to progress the cause of Tasmanian Aboriginals, last year in relation to one of the most fundamental rights of all people, the right to be educated, your Education minister would not acknowledge to Michael Mansell and the Aboriginal community more broadly, the Government's failure to meet the needs of Aboriginal children in our schools today. Premier, four out of 10 Aboriginal children leave year 10 not able to pass basic mathematics. Five out of 10 Aboriginal children leave year 10 unable to pass basic English. That is a tragedy.

In response to the Leader of the Tasmanian Greens who described the Liberals' position as disgraceful, let me tell you that four out of 10 children failing basic maths and five out of 10 children failing basic English, is a disgrace.

Members interjecting.

Mr GUTWEIN - Let us be clear on our position on the bill before us. We have said continually that where there was local community support, where it was in the interests of reconciliation and where the Government at least gave some consideration to the recommendations of the Legislative Council select committee on Aboriginal lands, we would obviously consider reconciliation and land transfer as a part of reconciliation. Firstly, the local community support. We do not believe there is anywhere near the level of support that is needed. This lack of support is not only evident from within the broader Flinders Island community but also from the divisions that exist within the Cape Barren Island community itself. My Bass colleague, Sue Napier, attended the public meeting that was held on Flinders Island last Friday. I was appalled when Mrs Napier recounted to me the story of the Cape Barren community members who wished to attend meeting to voice their concerns regarding the transfer but decided not to because of the threat of arson. If that is not a community divided, I do not know what is. The Government has not handled this matter of land handback well at all and that is what the issue is here: the process that the Government has employed in respect of this issue.

After the Government's failure to effect land transfer in 1999, the Legislative Council provided the select committee report that the Government could have used as a way forward. The Government could have begun a process of education for, not only, the residents of the Furneaux Group but mainland Tasmanians generally as well. Over the last five years the Government could have, in cooperation with the local Flinders council, have held public briefings, public education seminars, put in place a process that would share with all residents of the islands the messages that have been articulated in this place today by the Leader of the Greens and the member for Bass, Ms Hay. The need for reconciliation is a concept, a principle, that all of us in this place agree with but reconciliation will not occur until understanding occurs, and understanding will not occur until a real effort at education is made and that just simply has not occurred.

I am a relatively new member of parliament - I was not here for the debate last time land transfer came into this place. The one thing I do know is that if we truly want reconciliation and if land transfer is a key to this process, then we need to educate and inform people as to the reasons.

The Government's linking of major infrastructure funding for the Flinders Island Council to gain their support for this legislation, in my opinion is a national disgrace. Land transfer as a component of reconciliation should never be linked to local infrastructure project funding. If these infrastructure needs exist, then fund them but fund them in their own right because people need them, not because this legislation may gain the required number of votes in this place and the upper House.

In finishing, perhaps those on the government benches who have spoken with such emotion today might direct their energies at their cabinet colleagues and convince them to not only begin working with the local communities affected by the bill before us, to ensure that through knowledge and shared understanding, the process of land transfers can move forward for the betterment of all concerned. Perhaps they could also encourage their cabinet colleagues of the need to take a real look at some of the pressing needs facing the Aboriginal community today in this State in respect of some of the outcomes from our education system.

Chequebook reconciliation, as proposed by the Premier, will not move our collective society forward. It is for that reason, and for the reason that I have articulated in relation to the division that is being created in the communities affected, that I support the Liberal Party's position on this particular bill. Chequebook reconciliation is not the way forward and this Government, unfortunately, has missed the opportunity that the last five years presented it with to educate, to provide shared understanding of the importance of moving the reconciliation process forward and of the Aboriginal and indigenous groups' desire to have land transfer included as part of the process.

[4.58 p.m.]

Mr McKIM (Franklin) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate. The first thing I said when I rose to my feet and began my inaugural speech in this Parliament was that we have stolen this land from the Aboriginal people and that adequate recompense has not yet been made for that theft. I would like to place very firmly on the record that I still believe that to be the case and, as a matter of fact, it will still be the case even after this bill passes this House, as I trust and believe that it will, and even after this bill passes another place upstairs, which I sincerely hope that it does. But nevertheless, even though it will still be the case that adequate recompense has not yet been made, it remains the fact that this bill which we debate today is a very significant step forward - albeit a small one - and one that I completely support along with my Green colleagues and members of the Government.

Speaking late in this debate gives me the opportunity to make a few comments on other members' contributions and I intend to do that because that is one of the things that makes a debate in this House. I join with another of the members and congratulate the Premier for his contribution and for the courage that he has shown in progressing this matter. I heard the speech that the Premier made at a rally which was attended by many members of the Aboriginal community - late last year, I believe it was. I was in the crowd and I thought it was a very good speech. I said that to him after that event and I would like to thank him again on the record today for the speech that he made. The Premier said, and I would agree, that we are not interested in being glorious losers in relation to this matter, and it was a difficult decision that was made by the Government to slow down on this, even though there were certain people calling for the matter to be put to the upper House, and what we have ended up with is in my estimation at least an outcome of some kind, and certainly a very desirable outcome.

I would also just like to quickly acknowledge the contribution from Peg Putt, and those who have watched Peg and listened to her contributions in relation to the Aboriginal issue over many years in this Parliament will be aware of how hard she has worked and what her beliefs are in relation to this matter, and I thought it was a very heart-felt and emotional contribution that she made. She certainly feels very strongly about this matter, and I completely support everything she said. And might I add that I also feel the same way about Ms Hay's contribution, which was clearly a very heart-felt contribution, and I support what she has said as well. The member for Denison, Mr Bartlett, made some comments which I also agree with, and I am paraphrasing him but he said something along the lines of sometimes when you sit in this place you do feel a part of something very worthwhile. I would agree with him that today I do feel part of something very worthwhile in being a member of this House. A number of times since I was elected I have been ashamed to be a member of this House of Assembly, due to some of the decisions that this place has collectively made, but it has also happened that a number of times I have felt very proud to be a member of the House of Assembly due to the collective decisions that we have made, and today is certainly one of the latter cases.

Something that Mr Booth said struck me, and that is that it is impossible for most of us who sit in this place to know what it is like to be an Aboriginal person, because we are not Aboriginals, we are white fellas, and I think that is right. But what we can do is give it a try. What we can do is try our best to put ourselves in the shoes of the original indigenous inhabitants of this nation. We can try to understand what it feels like to have your lifestyle torn from you, to have a genocidal campaign waged against you and have your lands stolen from under your feet by an invading nation. I submit very strongly to all members of this House that we would not be happy if that happened to us. In fact we would be very unhappy, and I suspect that we would take strong and stringent action, firstly to try to avoid it happening and, secondly, if it had happened, to mitigate the results of that occurrence. So I ask members to attempt at least to put themselves in that position and see how they think they would feel if it happened to them.

Mr Gutwein made some points about some disappointing results in relation to educational outcomes achieved by Aboriginal children, and I agree with his comments that they are a disgrace. I agree that we all have to work harder to try to improve those outcomes but, as Ms Putt rightly pointed out, two wrongs do not make a right, and to attempt to draw a link of some kind in defence of what I regard as an indefensible position by Mr Gutwein, a link of some kind between educational outcomes achieved by Aboriginal children and the requirement that we make adequate recompense for the theft of the Aboriginal people's land is a disappointing tactic. It is a link that I do not believe has any veracity or any basis in reality at all. It is merely a rhetorical gimmick employed by Mr Gutwein to try to defend the indefensible.

Mr Speaker, in closing, this is the right thing to do, and it is important that politicians and public policy-makers, when they are considering what their position will be in relation to any particular issue, look at the issue in the broader context and come to a position whereby they are doing what they believe is the right thing to do. Mr Speaker, the passage of this bill is the right thing for Tasmania, it is the right thing for Aboriginal Tasmanians and the broader Tasmanian community, and I am very proud to be able to join with my Green colleagues and the Labor Party and support this bill.

[5.05 p.m.]

Mr LENNON (Franklin - Premier) - I thank members for their contributions. There is only one way, I think, to sum up the position of the Liberal Party and it is this way: excuses, excuses, excuses, nothing but damned excuses.

I have been observing the member for Bass, Mrs Napier's tactics on the issue of Aboriginal reconciliation in this Parliament pretty closely since 1998 and nothing has changed. The arch conservatives in the Liberal Party are still very much in charge of this policy issue over there.

I am going to deal in my reply with this issue that she has tried to raise spuriously about the MOU, because it was the Flinders Council itself that raised the issue of financial loss to the council and to the municipality in a motion it passed back in June last year and forwarded to the State Government requesting us to respond to it.

What the motion said in part - and I quote from it - was, 'concerns regarding the potential loss of revenue to Flinders Council and potential difficulties of administration of local and State Government functions, particularly on Cape Barren Island'. In response to the passage of that motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the State Government set about preparing an appropriate response to the council.

First of all we had to undertake an audit on Cape Barren Island on what the issues were there, and so we did. I had the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, through the responsible minister, undertake a detailed audit and that did not relate only to the road infrastructure, it also related to energy. I also had the Minister for Education have a close look at the education facilities on Cape Barren Island.

In February of this year when I met with the council, we raised the issues, and I do not make any apology for this and I do not frankly see what is wrong with it either, but I raised the issues of financial loss with the council. I offered to pay the rates in arrears that exist on Cape Barren Island, which was subsequently rejected by the council. That clearly identified to me where the issue of financial loss was in their mind, because they were not referring to the issue of rates in arrears because they rejected that offer.

In formal correspondence to the council I indicated that the State Government would take over sole responsibility for the roads on Cape Barren Island and I identified the cost of that in formal correspondence I sent to the council on 23 February. Apparently everybody is an expert on this matter but the people who have been directly involved in it, especially members opposite, but I can advise the House that I did indicate formally to Councillor Terence Klug, the Mayor of Flinders Island Council in correspondence to him, that the Government would fund the purchase of used plant and equipment and provide ongoing funding of up to $350 000 to enable the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association to assume responsibility for the maintenance of roads on Cape Barren Island. That removed one aspect of the financial loss that the council had, one aspect only.

I invited the council, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the same correspondence, to address the other issues that had been raised at the meeting and as I said in the correspondence, and I quote, 'I have already addressed the issue of rates'. Well, as I said to you subsequently, in the MOU they rejected that -

Mr Hidding - Why did they do that?

Mr LENNON - I do not know, why don't you ask the council? They voted five to one. You seem to think this was a close result at the council. Well, it was not; I have news for you, the vote was five to one; it was pretty clear-cut, I would have thought. That is a democracy. You might not want to believe this but sometimes in a democracy you have a vote to decide an outcome. Well, that is what the council did. Clearly you have had a vote in your party room and you have lost - that is the way I read it.

The letter went on, 'There was some discussion at our meeting about potential infrastructure impacts. I will be pleased to receive the council's advice regarding issues in relation to infrastructure'. That is where it comes from, it does not come from us, as you would like to portray -

Mr Gutwein - Of course it comes from you.

Mr LENNON - You would not have a clue; you have been outside and have not heard the first part of it all.

Mr Gutwein - You've got form on this.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LENNON - For your information I will repeat what I said. On 24 June last year the council passed a resolution and I quoted part of it to the House - you were not here, you came in halfway through and interrupting.

Mr Gutwein - I heard it on the squawk box.

Mr LENNON - The council passed a resolution regarding potential loss of revenue to Flinders Island Council. They rejected the payment of rates in arrears as being the definition of financial loss. You might not like it but that is the way it works. The Government goes up there to respond to issues raised -

Mr Gutwein - How much do they lose in rates?

Mr LENNON - Well, there is a substantial loss.

Mr Gutwein - You don't know, do you? The Valuer-General has to look at it.

Mr LENNON - Yes, I do; I know what the loss is because we did an audit. You see, you were outside. I know where you are coming from. I know exactly where you are coming from, member. You have had a look at the politics of this, haven't you? Like you always do. At the end of the day you have decided that your own interests will be put in front of somebody else's, because that is where you always end up, as a party. That is where you ended up on shop trading hours, that is where you ended up on Spirit s I and II , that is where you ended up on reconciliation in 1999 and in 2001, and that is where you have ended up today. The Liberal Party since 1998 has been a party that has become known as a party that never changes, that never promotes change.

Mr Gutwein - And you say, 'We are putting this through'.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LENNON - You held out the hope for the Aboriginal community last year that you would support this. The other thing I found interesting today was that the argument you have attached today is that because we did not implement the Legislative Council process toward land handback you could not support today's legislation.

Mr Gutwein - You implemented no process.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LENNON - Then Mrs Napier stood in her place and said, 'We would not mind supporting Clarke Island but we cannot support Cape Barren and we cannot support Goose'. Well, what is difference? If we are supposed go through the Legislative Council process, according to you, how can you all of a sudden separate one off?

Mrs Napier - You don't understand much if you don't see much difference. You don't understand it at all, if that's what you are saying.

Mr LENNON - Well, Mrs Napier, as I said, I have been observing your tactics on this matter for some years and as I said to my people, 'Mrs Napier will rule the day inside the Liberal Party on this matter. She always does and she always comes down on the side of conservatives and no change, always'. That is exactly what has happened here and they have fallen into line with you yet again. I know what you argue because when you were Leader of the Liberal Opposition over there you argued it very publicly indeed at public meetings on the far north-west coast and you are still doing it today. You always find an excuse not to support land handback as being central to reconciliation. You have had a consistent position on it and the least you should do is have the decency to publicly say that you do not support land handback as being central to reconciliation. You never have and I doubt you ever will. The sad part about it is that you still control the numbers on this matter inside the Liberal Party. That is the unfortunate part about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do thank members -

Mrs Napier - You went over to Cape Barren Island and offered some sweeteners to the council.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.

Mr LENNON - Don't be silly.

Mrs Napier - Oh, really? Did you say it or not?

Mr LENNON - I went to Cape Barren Island before I went to see the council.

Mrs Napier - You went to Cape Barren after you went to see the council.

Mr LENNON - I have been to Cape Barren Island a number of times.

Mrs Napier - Exactly.

Mr LENNON - Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not need to go back over the whole issue of the MOU. But I will make this point in respect to it in that so far as it refers to finances, it relates directly to a motion passed by the council. It relates directly to discussions I had with the council subsequent to that in February of this year and it was the council themselves that voted five to one to come to Launceston to talk to the Government. So if you want to raise imputations about the Government in respect to this matter, exactly the same imputation flows to the Deputy Mayor of the council and the other councillors who were at the meeting. You cannot have it both ways. That is the trouble it gets you into, isn't it? You have been scrambling around looking for a reason to oppose this legislation. I have known that for some time. But I did hold out hope that your Leader could hold sway on this matter inside your party. Sadly, he has not been able to, but at least I can recognise that if he had his way he would have his party supporting it. Thankfully, we do not need your support. We can get the legislation through this Parliament in this House at least without your support and hopefully there will be a majority of Legislative Councillors who will support us on the matter.

Mrs Napier - And you will thumb your nose at the people of Flinders Island and Cape Barren Island.

Mr LENNON - Let us have a look at all those claims you make about lack of consultation.

Mrs Napier - What about the results of the petition, the surveys?

Mr LENNON - We have consulted widely on this legislation. What you want us to do -

Mrs Napier - How did you do that?

Mr LENNON - There have been a number of meetings with the council and the Cape Barren Island Aboriginal Association. We have written to every resident a number of times. I could document all the responses we have had, all the phone calls, everything else we have had. I can document it all, if you want me to. I have had meetings with individual land and leaseholders myself. There have been other meetings held with them. We have addressed issue after issue that has been raised with us. But at the end of the day we cannot address the issue if people do not want the resolution. We cannot do that, and you know we cannot. At the end of the day the council voted to come to Launceston to discuss matters with the Government. We did that in good faith and signed an MOU in good faith with them.

Mrs Napier - Really?

Mr LENNON - They were not forced to sign it. That is an affront to the Deputy Mayor!

Mrs Napier - Of course they were. You listen to her own words. They had nowhere to go.

Mr LENNON - Okay, I am pleased I have that on the record from you. That is an affront to the Deputy Mayor and the others members of the Flinders Island Council who came to Launceston on that particular day. You can sit there smugly, but they acted in the best interests of their community as they saw it. That all flowed directly from a resolution that was passed by the council back in June.

The members for Bass can shake their heads, but I am not surprised you are leading the charge on this. If you see some politics for you on Flinders Island, fine, but at least say so!

Mr Gutwein - You are dividing the community.

Mr LENNON - That is where you are coming from. If anyone is acting grubbily here, it is you people because you can see the politics for yourselves. Well, fine. But some of us sometimes act in this Chamber without regard for how it might affect us personally in the electorate. Of course this is a house of politics; that is what happens in democracies. We understand that and so do you, but at least you should be prepared to stand here today and say why you have taken this position. Do not hide behind the council, do not hide behind the deputy mayor, do not hide behind the public meeting the other day. I happen to believe that you had no intention, Mrs Napier, of ever allowing this legislation to be supported.

Mrs Napier - I had every intention.

Mr LENNON - Absolute rubbish!

Mrs Napier - Well, you didn't listen to what I was saying. I thought it was going to happen.

Mr LENNON - There is no evidence at any stage that the Liberal Party was actively trying to get support for this legislation. In fact, what you have done today has confirmed that.

We are at a point in this debate and with this legislation that I think is fairly predictable. The Liberal Party held out hope to the Aboriginal community that we could have a tripartite arrangement in this House to see a minimalist approach. That is all it is, a minimalist approach - Cape Barren Island and Clarke Island. You take one attitude in respect to our response to the council's request on Goose Island and you take another attitude in respect of other aspects of the MOU. I agreed to the amendment at the request of the council, acting on behalf of its community as it saw it, to take Goose Island out of the legislation. As I said during the second reading speech, it was not chosen randomly as some sort of trading tool with the council or the community.

Mrs Napier - Hopefully it was taken out, on merit.

Mr LENNON - So you do not believe in Goose Island either? It is a very significant island for the Aboriginal community.

Mr Hidding - Why did you take it out then?

Mr LENNON - I took it out in the hope that I could advance reconciliation in a small way, shape or form because the council said that, acting on behalf of their community, their concern with the legislation could be removed to the point where there would not be open opposition to it if we made a number of concessions to them in the MOU - and that is what we negotiated.

Mrs Napier - In other words, they could live with it.

Mr LENNON - You can shake your head and not agree with it, but that is a fact of life. That is the process that you go through. This is trying to move the debate forward, trying to come to grips with the concerns that the council raised with us over many months on behalf of their local community and elected as they are to show some leadership for their local community, to try to advance their interests, concerned as they were about the costs associated with ongoing maintenance on Cape Barren Island. Those members of the House who took up the opportunity to go there would understand very much that the council had not been able to maintain the roads in any sort of reasonable state, for goodness' sake. Let us be fair about that. I had an independent audit done by DIER as to what it would cost to get the roads into a reasonable shape, and it is not within the council's ability to do that. Let us be honest about it for a minute. There are rates owed to the council. I offered to pay those. Is that supposed to be a bribe as well? Well, the council rejected that, but I offered it, so put that down as a bribe if you want to, or an attempted bribe, however you want to describe it because it suits you politically.

Mr Gutwein - What were they, $35 000 in arrears?

Mr LENNON - $36 000. It is documented in the letter. They rejected it.

Mr Gutwein - Well, they would much rather have $2 million. Goodness me!

Mr LENNON - Well, you know, you could put it any way you like. You can add up your opposition to this legislation any way you like, but you cannot get away from the fact that the reason you are opposing this legislation is because you believe you can get a few more votes for yourself on Flinders Island. Well, good luck to you.

Mr Gutwein - No, because I believe the process has not been right, and you are buying them off. That's what's going on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order!

Mr LENNON - You do not believe in anything. You would be one member of the House who I could safely say does not believe in anything except something that advances you. I can safely assume that, I can tell you that now.

And so at the end of the day I think I have assessed this situation right, that it was pointless leaving the legislation any longer because we had held out hope for long enough that the Liberal Party might actually overrule Mrs Napier on this matter and support this minimalist approach to reconciliation and accept the principle that land handback is central to it. When you really nut out the arrangements put in place through this legislation, the concessions made by the Aboriginal community about management ought to have given a reasonable person comfort. I congratulate the Deputy Mayor, Carol Cox, and her colleagues at Flinders Island Council for the leadership they have shown their community. It would not have been an easy thing for her to do on behalf of her community, so I do congratulate her. She does not deserve the imputations that she is getting from the members opposite for showing that leadership. So I do thank members who are supporting the legislation.

The member for Bass, Mrs Napier, did raise some other matters in respect to fishing zones and fishing rights. I can advise that I have already informed the council formally in correspondence in February this year in respect of this matter, and I can read that part of the letter to you. This is a letter to the Mayor, Terence Klug. It says:

'As you are aware, a review of the Living Marine Resources Act is currently being undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. As part of the review an Aboriginal Cultural Practices working group has been established. Any discussions relating to Aboriginal fishing areas will be considered in the context of the review being undertaken by DPIWE. I reiterate that fishing rights are not part of the Aboriginal Lands Amendment Bill 2004.'

Mrs Napier did raise that matter and asked for a response to that, and that is the response to it.

I thank members for their contribution and, in closing, can I pay particular note to the contribution of my colleague the member for Bass, Ms Hay. It was a very courageous speech she made today, and I congratulate her for it. I have been a member of this Parliament for almost 15 years. In that time I have not seen many defining moments in this Chamber, but for me that was one of them.

Bill read the second time.