Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

The minister opposite, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, said that the tree was diseased. No, the tree was poisoned and attacked in an act of exceptional vandalism to one of the sites which her government put on the National Heritage List. That may be a laugh for the government, but I think that it is a tragedy. It is particularly important for Australia’s history. It may well be that the tories opposite want to take us back to the industrial conditions which presided prior to 1891 when the Australian Labor Party was formed, but the fact is that this is an important part of our history—which is what this bill is about in acknowledging our heritage as a nation. For the government, who are quite happy to lecture people about history and people taking stuff out of history, to actually list the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine and not mention trade unions and the Australian Labor Party defies belief with regard to how petty they are prepared to be. We of course on this side of the House are very proud of our history and our associations with the labour movement.

The Howard government’s failure to respect our heritage extends to Indigenous heritage. Just look at Wave Hill. As the member for Kingsford Smith said recently, the events at Wave Hill, where Vincent Lingiari led a walk-off 40 years ago, changed the face of Australia. In the words of those great Australian singer-songwriters, Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody, ‘From little things big things grow’. I want to read into the Hansard a few of the lines that I think are so powerful from what can essentially be regarded as a poem but is certainly a great song. The song begins:

Gather round people let me tell you’re a story

An eight year long story of power and pride

British Lord Vestey and Vincent Lingiarri

Were opposite men on opposite sides

Vestey was fat with money and muscle

Beef was his business, broad was his door

Vincent was lean and spoke very little

He had no bank balance, hard dirt was his floor

From little things big things grow

From little things big things grow

Gurindji were working for nothing but rations

Where once they had gathered the wealth of the land

Daily the pressure got tighter and tighter

Gurindju decided they must make a stand

They picked up their swags and started off walking

At Wattie Creek they sat themselves down

Now it don’t sound like much but it sure got tongues talking

Back at the homestead and then in the town

From little things big things grow

From little things big things grow

Vestey man said I’ll double your wages

Seven quid a week you’ll have in your hand

Vincent said uhuh we’re not talking about wages

We’re sitting right here till we get our land

Vestey man roared and Vestey man thundered

You don’t stand the chance of a cinder in snow

Vince said if we fall others are rising

From little things big things grow

From little things big things grow

It concludes:

That was the story of Vincent LingairriBut this is the story of something much moreHow power and privilege can not move a peopleWho know where they stand and stand in the law.

That is a very strong evocation of the events at Wave Hill that were absolutely instrumental in the historic campaign to introduce land rights laws in the Northern Territory and for this nation.

In July 2004 the Minister for the Environment and Heritage announced that the Wave Hill walk-off site would be given priority consideration for inclusion on the National Heritage List. More than two years later, we are still waiting. Protecting our Indigenous heritage, it would seem, is not a priority for the Howard government. Just look at the Burrup Peninsula. The Aboriginal rock art on the Burrup Peninsula is of national significance. It is believed to have some of the largest concentrations of rock art in the world and some rock art may be up to 10,000 years old. There is no excuse for the destruction of rock art. We must make sure that it is protected.

The Howard government’s approach shows a real complacency towards our heritage, which is not substantially improved by the bill before us. Labor welcomes and supports the intention in the bill to give greater certainty to international cultural loan arrangements. That certainly is important. The submission to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee inquiry into this bill from the Australian Museum outlines the argument clearly:

... these proposed changes to the legislation ... would bring certainty to the process of acquiring Aboriginal cultural material for loan, exhibitions, research and Aboriginal community access from overseas cultural organization to Australia. It would place this material within a straightforward and secure legal framework ...

Labor also supports the provisions to enable the Victorian government to administer their own Indigenous heritage protection regime. It is right that the government should seek to amend that anomaly.

We support these provisions in the bill but, as I noted earlier, this was a missed opportunity to further strengthen the Indigenous heritage protection available in this nation. Given that it is now 10 years since the Evatt inquiry reported, it is timely for the government to look again at a comprehensive review of Indigenous heritage protection, and I will be moving an amendment to that effect. Labor’s amendment also seeks to ensure that heritage protection declarations made by the minister under the act do not automatically cease after 10 years. Legitimate concerns were raised by the Central Land Council in their submission to the Senate inquiry regarding the impact of the sunset clause in this act. This amendment would ensure that existing declarations do not have to be remade.

Given existing circumstances, Labor will support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005. Labor supports moves to give greater certainty to international cultural loan arrangements and of course believes the Victorian government should administer its own Aboriginal heritage protection regime. But we remind the government of the promise made by Senator Hill in 2003 that there would be a ‘new and better piece of legislation’. Given that it is now 10 years since the Evatt inquiry reported, and given the government’s complacent attitude towards Indigenous heritage protection, it really is time for a fresh start. A comprehensive review of Indigenous heritage protection would be a useful starting point. I therefore move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that on 20 August 2003, then Leader of the Government in the Senate Senator Robert Hill stated in relation to Indigenous heritage protection that the Government recognised the shortcomings in the existing system, that reform was long overdue and that the government was anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible;

(2)

registers its concern that the Howard Government has failed to address the shortcomings in indigenous heritage protection;

(3)

expresses its concern that the Howard Government has failed to act on the recommendations of the 1996 Evatt Inquiry into the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984;

(4)

notes that it is now 10 years since the Evatt Inquiry reported, and calls for a comprehensive review of Indigenous heritage protection, and

(5)

calls on the Government to support the inclusion of a sunset exemption provision in the bill”.

I ask for the support of the House.

See this speech in context