THE new land bill won't affect public venues like the MCG, writes ROB HULLS and RICHARD WYNNE
Every time a step is taken towards land justice for indigenous Victorians, some abandon facts for fabrication.
- READ MORE
- Land bill debate 'stuff up'
- Have Your Say now in the form below
Opposition spokesman Robert Clark (WT, Sep 1) knows the detail of the Traditional Owner Settlement Bill yet prefers to peddle misinformation - unashamedly scaremongering by suggesting that the MCG, Parliament or similar sites are going to be subject to native title claims.
This is simply not the case.
All major infrastructure on Crown land is excluded. Rather, claims that would normally be considered under the federal legislation will be removed from the courts and negotiated with more pragmatism for all involved.
The legislation is a common-sense approach that works in the Victorian context - developed over several years in collaboration with traditional owners and in consultation with industries seeking certainty regarding land use and management.
This approach is not about opening any floodgates. It is not about removing parliament's prerogatives, nor about choosing traditional owner groups at a whim.
It is not about offering up land that was previously off limits; nor about conferring rights to negotiation that were not already present under existing federal legislation.
Under this new system, third-party rights and interests are protected and the public's access is unchanged.
All existing licences and leases are protected.
Where there is a right of renewal, that right is protected.
Almost all licences will not require any negotiation with traditional owners, including apiary licences, grazing licences, and taking forest produce including timber (the exception is mining licences, the same as the Commonwealth's Native Title Act).
Some new leases will require negotiation, just as they do under the Native Title Act, but only where there is significant impact, such as commercial leases for more than 10 years in length.
In other words, the rights and obligations contained in this framework are essentially the same as those under the Native Title Act.
Why, then, do we need a new approach?
Because the federal system was never designed to address claims in highly settled areas; because determinations currently require complex investigations and a burden of proof from claimants that is impossible given Victoria's history of dispossession; because each claim currently takes an average of 10 years to resolve; and because more than $40 million has been spent resolving claims affecting only 15 per cent of Crown land.
It is time for a new approach for the sake of all Victorians affected by the use or management of public land.
All want a more-efficient process that offers certainty and opportunity. In fact, the Minerals Council of Australia stated that "the new approach offers significant advantages to the traditional owner groups and provides certainty for businesses that use Crown land in Victoria".
The Opposition, aware of the proposal for a year, say that its aims are "worthwhile" yet seek to delay it and spread misinformation. Why, if they don't support the Bill, don't they just say this outright?
It is time to acknowledge facts, not fabrications.
We invite all Victorians to read this Bill and see those facts for themselves.
Perhaps the Opposition should take the time to do the same.
- Rob Hulls is the deputy premier of Victoria and Richard Wynne is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
