Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

NT

Jul 27, 2009

Macklin botches Alice Springs town camp compulsory acquisition

Jenny Macklin has botched the compulsory acquisition of the Alice Springs town camps for the second time in as many months, and now faces the prospect of having to cut a deal with Tangentyere Council.

 —

User login status :

Share

Jenny Macklin has botched the compulsory acquisition of the Alice Springs town camps for the second time in as many months, and now faces the prospect of having to cut a deal with Tangentyere Council — an organisation she has been publicly flogging for two months — or delay the government takeover until at least October, documents obtained by the National Indigenous Times reveal.

The latest blunder relates to the period of notice that must be provided by the Commonwealth to anyone whose interest in the town camp land is affected by the proposed compulsory acquisition.

Currently, Tangentyere Council holds a lease over the land on behalf of the town camp housing associations, who in turn lease individual homes to town camp families.

In late May — after Tangentyere refused to sign over control of its land for 40 years in exchange for $125 million in housing and infrastructure upgrades — Macklin gave the council and the town camp associations formal notice that the Commonwealth was considering compulsorily acquiring the land.

But it seems no-one in the Minister’s office thought to formally notify the actual tenants of the town camp.

NIT understands that there are around 200 people who hold lease agreements with the town camp housing associations, and whose tenancy rights would be affected by any government takeover. By law, they are required to be given a reasonable period of notice about the forced acquisition.

The mistake was exposed on Friday, when lawyers acting for town camp resident and prominent anti-intervention activist Barbara Shaw wrote to the Minister notifying her an application had been lodged in the Federal Court seeking an injunction against the proposed acquisition.

Lawyers acting pro bono for Ms Shaw include prominent Queens Counsel Ron Merkel, the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, leading international law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, UTS-based lawyers Professor Larissa Behrendt and Alison Vivian, and George Newhouse, a prominent Sydney-based human rights lawyer.

They’ve set a deadline of 5pm tomorrow (Tuesday) for the Minister to provide Barbara Shaw with a written assurance the government will not proceed with a decision about the proposed compulsory acquisition, warning her that any attempt to “defeat or diminish the current rights” held by town campers must be preceded by a reasonable period of proper notice.

Macklin will now either have to re-extend the period of notice of compulsory acquisition by another 60 days — the same notice she gave Tangentyere and the housing associations — or hope she can convince Tangentyere to sign over control of the town camps, thus negating the need to use the compulsory acquisition powers.

A further two month delay would mean it took the Minister for Indigenous Affairs almost six months to complete a process that should have taken two.

Government sources have confirmed that the Minister’s office intensified its efforts to secure an agreement with Tangentyere late this week, but no accord has been reached.

Macklin could also try and strike a deal directly with the town camp residents, although negotiating with 200 parties for a single outcome — and in a timely fashion — would seem a tall order.

Whatever happens, it’s another highly embarrassing blunder from a Minister already under siege. In the past month a string of departmental leaks have put Macklin squarely in the media’s gaze over her handling of the NT intervention.

Last week, the government came under fire after leaked party advice revealed Macklin’s mishandling of $672 million in Indigenous housing funding. That came two weeks after leaked documents revealed she had accepted advice from her department warning against consulting with Aboriginal people over a key part of the Northern Territory intervention – the compulsory acquisition of land in and around towns.

But what makes this latest error even more remarkable is that it’s the second time the Minister has botched the process of taking over the town camps.

On May 24, Macklin announced she was beginning the process of compulsorily acquisition because Tangentyere had refused to surrender control over the town camps. Macklin set a deadline of July 6 for Tangentyere to either sign the land over for 40 years, or lose it forever through forced acquisition.

But two weeks later, Macklin extended the deadline to August 4 while publicly rebuking the Australian Government Solicitor’s office for not providing her timely advice.

“On 24 May 2009, I announced that the Australian Government was taking the first step towards compulsory acquisition of the Alice Springs town camps,” Macklin wrote.

“Based on legal advice recently provided to me, I am releasing a revised timetable.

“The Australian Government Solicitor has advised the Government to extend the period during which people may provide submissions about a possible acquisition to 60 days.

“While I am disappointed that this latest legal advice was not provided earlier, I have an obligation to give affected persons a reasonable notice period in relation to my considerations under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act (2007).

“I am not prepared to risk the outcome of this process by ignoring the Australian Government Solicitor’s legal advice.”

Ironically, it’s the “process” that has been botched by Macklin. And it appears she’s done so on more than one front.

In late May, in an undated letter, Macklin wrote to the town camp associations: “After any acquisition, current residents in the camp will be able to continue to reside on the land, subject to any new residential tenancy arrangements.”

The statement could prove problematic for the government. In the media and during public meetings at the town camps — albeit poorly attended meetings — Macklin guaranteed the rights of tenants would continue unaltered if a forced acquisition went ahead.

But her letter to town camp associations clearly states that the rights of town camp tenants will be altered.

Macklin also appears to have already decided to compulsorily acquire the town camps, despite publicly stating that she wouldn’t reach a final decision until after August 4.

Macklin has given numerous interviews over town camp issue in the past two months. In most of them, the Minister has gone to great lengths to emphasize that ‘no decision has yet been taken’ about whether or not to proceed, and that a period of notice needed to first be completed.

But given the sheer volume of media Macklin did, it was inevitable she would eventually slip up.

It came on May 26 — National Sorry Day — in an interview with Kerry O’Brien on the ABC’s 7:30 Report.

O’Brien specifically asked Macklin if there really was “no other resort” to the “forced acquisition” of the town camps “particularly given the claim that this will be in breach of international law?”

Macklin’s response revealed a decision to forcibly acquire the land had already been taken.

“I have worked very, very hard over the last year to get an agreement with Tangentyere Council and with the housing associations covering the town camps in Alice Springs. I certainly wanted an agreement. And I thought we had one … Unfortunately, Tangentyere Council have gone back on that agreement … It is, in my view, no longer tenable for us to wait any longer. The level of overcrowding, the level of violence, is just too great, and I considered that it was time to act,” Macklin said.

Add her comments to a list of explanations Macklin will likely have to furnish the Prime Minister’s office over the coming days, as disquiet grows over her handling of the Indigenous affairs portfolio, and in particular the NT intervention.

The Rudd government’s largest and most controversial Indigenous affairs policy appears to be crumbling. And more than a few in Indigenous affairs have begun to suspect it might take a Minister with it.

 —

Tracker managing editor

Get a free trial to post comments
More from

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

17 comments

Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “Macklin botches Alice Springs town camp compulsory acquisition

  1. Chris Graham

    David1: You write: “Try doing an investigation of the public records on how much is spent on maintenance of indiginous State Housing, compared to other.” Guess what buckaroo, I’ve already done one. I suspect you’re not going to like the result… but you can read it here (although I’ll bet my house you won’t).

    http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p30282

    And here’s NIT’s story about it: http://www.nit.com.au/News/story.aspx?id=9860

    And wow Gary, your kids are ‘part Aboriginal’. Which part, specifically? The ‘part’ that makes them trash houses? Or the pasrt that makes them successful? Honestly mate, you try to make yourself sound like a supporter of the black cause, and then you go and describe your kids as ‘part Aboriginal’. Try this one on for size: You’re ‘part’ of the problem.

  2. David1

    re Chris Graham….why didnt you point out the information you linked to (I did bother to go to it) , was for a survey completed for the year 2004. How can you compare 5 years ago to now when there have been major policy updates, changes and attitudes towards indiginous housing.Didnt suit your silly arguement of course. You will find, remember I did not limit my remarks to your camps, the standard of construction for ethnic housing in the States is exactly the same as that for non indiginous tenants. Do you and your friend Ms McFarland seriously imply Governments deliberately build inferior housing for indiginous people. Ever heard of building standards, by laws, health requirements in planning and building.
    The majority of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units and houses are built to a design and standard, uniform accross the board. Who the inhabitants will be has no bearing on the final product. My point I repeat is, percentage of inhabitants, head numbers, whatever you wish to call it, maintenance on indiginous housing throughout the nation is disproportionate to that of others.
    Ms Graham, you have a way with words!!!, tell me why tenants of indiginous housing in the majority of cases do not say when signing tenancy agreements, what the true number of persons who will be living in the house, will be? Lets not be loose with the facts. Perhaps it may be if the actual number was revealed not all would be accommodated. There is policy regarding the number of inhabitants in a particularly sized house, health concerns being one of the main considerations, ages of males and females sharing bedrooms another. How often has one driven by a particular house to see 10, 12 14 persons congregated. Perhaps you two are not the only ones with a knowledge of the housing situation in this country. I see it day by day 2009, not from a report finalised in 2004. Your comments and observations are skewed one way, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

  3. SBH

    It’s really astonishing to see how a factual peice about a Minister of the Crown failing to act legally (let alone appropriatedly or reasonably) turns inexorably into a debate that attacks Aboriginal Australians who live in public housing and the author of the piece.

    Its astonishing but just all too common. Chris Grahma didn’t trick Macklin, he wrote and article reporting what was happening. Barbara Shaw didn’t trick Macklin, she just tried to stop a government ignoring her rights. Factual reporting and people who stand up for themselves in the face of poor government process are these things we all should support? How can you twist this into a debate about who’s to blame for the state of town camps.

    And if we are going to start blaming people why do we naturally blame the most disadvantaged, poorest least powerfull people in the equation. That seems the depth of cowardice. Why not look to the person who has been democratically given the resources and responsibility to actually do something?

    Minister Macklin, who has all the resources of a Commonwealth department and a government publicly committed to correcting the yawning chasm between black and white Australia, has f*cked up again. That’s what this piece is about.

    Surely it is in the interests of us all that ministers act within their powers and when they don’t they can and are challenged? David1 quite rightly points out that Macklin is not alone in her struggle to come to grips with her portfolio but she does stand out (perhaps with Garrett) as doing a really poor job.

    And it’s not just in this potrfolio, She struggled as the Deputy Leader struggled as the Health shadow when a key plank of labour policy (Medicare) was under attack and she struggled in education (BTW I wonder how the brilliantly concieved education pilot projects are going. You know the ones that linked school attendance to welfare in areas where the attendance was at or above state and Territory averages)

    In my view the intervention is a disgrace and the failure of the Rudd Government to do away with it diminishes all of us. It is racist, specious and destructive and had its roots in a desire to dig stuff up without interference from the people who lived on and owned the land. But that’s just my opinion. Before we even get to the ideology of a government we deserve much much better performance from our ministers, their advisers and their departments.

Leave a comment