Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 is to make amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 preserves and protects places, areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It contributes to this protection at the national level, but is available concurrently with the laws of most Australian states and territories. In 1987, however, it was extended to include a series of provisions that would apply specifically to, and only in, Victoria. These provisions serve the national framework for Indigenous heritage protection, at the state level, but they also stand in the way of state legislation being put in place by Victoria for this purpose. All other states and territories have legislation to protect this heritage. The Victorian government wrote to the Australian government this year to explore how this obstacle could be removed to allow proposed new Victorian cultural heritage legislation to be put in place.

This bill proposes to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to remove the Victoria-specific provisions. The Australian government legislation will then provide the same level of protection in Victoria that it provides for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in other parts of Australia. Pursuant to the amendments contained in the bill, the Victorian government will then be able to administer Aboriginal heritage protection directly through its own new legislation, as is the case for all other Australian states and territories.

The Victoria-specific parts of the Australian government legislation will not be removed, however, until a time to be set within a 12-month period. This will allow their repeal and replacement by the proposed new Victorian legislation in a coordinated fashion and prevent any lapse in protection for Victoria’s significant Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The consequential amendments to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987 contained in the bill remove references to the Victoria-specific provisions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. The consequential amendments would remove an exception to the obligation upon two Aboriginal landowner corporations to not disclose information about sacred or significant places without the appropriate permission. After the amendment, the obligation to protect the information about sacred or significant sites will continue without exception.

The bill makes other changes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 that are needed to ensure that Australians continue to have opportunities to see, in Australia, significant Aboriginal cultural heritage objects that are owned by institutions overseas.

Museums and other cultural institutions in Australia are often entrusted with objects under contractual and other loan arrangements for temporary exhibition in Australia. Overseas institutions are reluctant to loan material unless they have the protection of a certificate under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986, to allow the return of the important objects to the lender and owner overseas. Recently, the return of a number of loaned Aboriginal objects was prevented by declarations made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. This occurred even though a certificate to allow return had been obtained under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. The objects were eventually returned, but only after court proceedings. Uncorrected, this kind of uncertainty would discourage overseas institutions from ever allowing items from their collections to be exhibited in Australia.

The bill provides that a certificate allowing the return of loaned cultural heritage objects cannot be overridden by a declaration under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. In this way, it will help to secure the framework for future international cultural exchanges of benefit to Australia.

The bill also provides for technical amendments to be made to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to bring it into line with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. These amendments help clarify which class of instruments contained in the act are non-exempt legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I commend the bill to the House.

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

On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, as shadow minister for heritage I rise to make a contribution to the debate, which is important, on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, which is before the House. There is an ongoing debate about Australia’s national identity and about what it is that makes us Australian. People talk about mateship, our love of sport and our sense of fair play. They are all important. But the truth is that the starting point of Australian identity is our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. It is a heritage that is too often ignored in public debate. It is certainly ignored for the most part by the Howard government. But it remains an inconvenient truth for that government.

The last 10 years has seen a complacent attitude towards our Indigenous heritage. For 10 years now there has been an obvious need for reform of Indigenous heritage protection, but that reform has not been delivered. I will come back to that. I think it is important to first get a sense of what we are talking about when we refer to Indigenous heritage. The excellent Australian Heritage Commission publication Ask First: A guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places and values states:

Indigenous heritage is a unique, irreplaceable part of Australia’s national cultural heritage that requires greater recognition and protection ...

Indigenous heritage is dynamic. It includes tangible and intangible expressions of culture that link generations of Indigenous people over time. Indigenous people express their cultural heritage through ‘the person’, their relationships with country, people, beliefs, knowledge, law, language, symbols, ways of living, sea, land and objects all of which arise from Indigenous spirituality.

Ask First defines Indigenous heritage places as:

... landscapes, sites and areas that are particularly important to Indigenous people as part of their customary law, developing traditions, history and current practices.

Indigenous heritage values include spirituality, law, knowledge, practices, traditional resources or other beliefs and attachments.

That is a very powerful way of looking at heritage and, it seems to me, a very different way to how we often approach our heritage. The two main pieces of legislation that provide for the protection of Indigenous heritage are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the EPBC, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

In looking at the bill before us it is important to first consider the historical context in which the legislation was put in place. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 was introduced by the Hawke Labor government. In introducing the original bill, on 6 June 1984, Senator Susan Ryan stated that it would:

... fill a gap in the law of Australia which can allow sites of significance to be damaged, destroyed or desecrated, and can allow objects of significance, including Aboriginal human remains, to be traded, displayed and otherwise used in ways which are anathema to Aboriginals and their traditions.

…         …         …

The preservation and protection of this ancient and significant culture from the destructive processes which have been operating at different rates across this country can only enrich the heritage of all Australians.

This was an important piece of legislation, produced at a significant time in Australian history and a significant time in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I pay tribute to the work of the Hawke Labor government in this regard. Although the legislation was significant, it was always intended as a stopgap measure while the then Labor government developed more comprehensive national land rights legislation. When it became apparent in 1986 that such legislation would not be forthcoming at that time, its sunset clause was repealed. The stopgap measure in the end became a permanent measure.

In 1995, the then Aboriginal affairs minister, my friend Robert Tickner, announced a review of the act by Justice Elizabeth Evatt. The Evatt inquiry, which reported on 21 June 1996, outlined a number of concerns with the implementation of the act. Its report noted that the act was intended to operate as a last resort after the application of state and territory laws, but expressed concern, saying:

... the interaction between Commonwealth and State/Territory processes is not clearly established.

The Evatt inquiry starkly warned:

.. Aboriginal people consider that the Act has not protected their heritage.

The Evatt inquiry went on to make some major recommendations. Included in those was one which said that we needed to:

... provide a straightforward and simple procedure at Commonwealth level where State or Territory legislation does not provide effective protection for an area or site, or where that protection is withdrawn by the State or Territory Minister.

I mention this because it was very clear in 1996 that there was a need for reform to further strengthen Indigenous heritage protection. The previous Labor government had established this inquiry. The inquiry had reported. But, unfortunately, it has taken 10 long years for this government to respond to that inquiry—to have this legislation and see some level of reform.

In fact, over the last 10 years, the Howard government has tried on many occasions to wind back Indigenous heritage protection, consistent with its general attitude towards Indigenous Australians. In 1998, the government tried to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to narrow the responsibilities of the federal government. The then shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, my colleague the member for Banks, described that proposal as:

... the withdrawal of the Commonwealth from Aboriginal heritage protection in all but a few narrowly defined instances of a so-called ‘national interest’. In seeking to do so the government is walking away from its constitutional and international responsibilities.

These measures were opposed by Indigenous groups and by the Australian Labor Party. Because of this pressure, the 1998 bill was withdrawn. However, in 2003 the Howard government was able to push through the Senate a new heritage regime in the form of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The new regime essentially limited Commonwealth responsibility to those places on the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List, and gutted the independence of the Australian Heritage Commission. That automatically changed the way that Indigenous heritage was protected.

Labor opposed the 2003 heritage bills, and history has shown we were right to do so. I pay tribute to my predecessor as shadow minister for environment and heritage, the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, who played an important role at that time in ensuring that a principled decision was taken by the Australian Labor Party with regard to that legislation. During debate on the 2003 heritage bills, the government actually acknowledged they had failed to adequately address Indigenous heritage protection. On 20 August 2003, the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Robert Hill, stated:

We recognise the shortcomings in the existing system—

he was talking about Indigenous heritage protection—

Reform of that is long overdue.

He then went on to say that the government was:

... anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible.

That new and better piece of legislation never materialised, and the bill before us certainly does not complete the job. As I said before, Labor opposed the heritage bills of 2003, and we were right to do so. We were sceptical about the promise of further legislation, and this scepticism was justified. In particular, we were concerned about the impact of the new heritage regime on Indigenous heritage. On the very same day that Senator Hill made his comments, Senator Lundy said:

Labor have expressed our concern and asked direct questions of the minister about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill and the proposals that are supposed to be forthcoming … We are particularly concerned about the impact of this legislation on Aboriginal heritage ...

Senator Lundy went on to say that the new heritage regime would:

... have the effect of making Indigenous heritage a very poor cousin of what Labor believe will be an already very weakened heritage regime.

ATSIC shared Labor’s concerns. In a letter to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in August 2003, the then ATSIC Commissioner Rodney Dillon stated:

For ATSIC to support this bill—

the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill—

it would need to be satisfied that:

• the government will commit in Parliament to immediately invigorate the negotiations with the ATSIHP Bill;
• ensure that the Register of the National Estate becomes a part of the matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act; and
• the emergency listing provisions are strengthened …

Needless to say, the conditions were not met. The bill before us is not the reform that Senator Hill promised in 2003. It is not the reform ATSIC sought in 2003. It is not the reform that Justice Evatt recommended in her inquiry, which reported back in 1996. What we have before us instead is a very limited piece of legislation. It represents a lost opportunity.

We should not be surprised that the bill is a lost opportunity, because the Howard years have been characterised by a lack of respect for our heritage and a lack of due respect for Indigenous Australians. The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 demonstrates the government’s complacency towards our Indigenous heritage. Among other things, this draconian act overrides existing environment protection and Indigenous heritage laws in establishing a site for a nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory. The government has made it very clear that Indigenous heritage protection will not get in the way of finding a site for a nuclear waste dump. The Howard government will always put its political interests ahead of the national interest.

If you want another example of the lack of respect for our heritage, look at the Howard government’s attitude towards Anzac Cove. In 2003, the Prime Minister promised to protect Anzac Cove forever. He promised to make it the first listing on the new National Heritage List. In fact, on 18 December 2003 the Prime Minister said:

It seems to me … entirely appropriate that the Anzac site at Gallipoli should represent the first nomination for inclusion on the National Heritage List. And, although it’s not on Australian territory, anyone who has visited the place will know that once you go there you feel it is as Australian as the piece of land on which your home is built.

We all know that, instead of protecting Anzac Cove, the Howard government requested roadworks which damaged the geography of the site which had remained with its integrity in place for some 90 years. If the Prime Minister had been serious about protecting our heritage, he would have made sure that there was a heritage management plan for Anzac Cove and made sure that heritage experts and archaeologists monitored all the roadworks.

The fact is that the National Heritage List has failed up to this point. It was much vaunted by the government. It was to be the linchpin of the government’s heritage regime, but it has failed to live up to the rhetoric. It certainly is not protecting our Indigenous heritage and it is not protecting our precious natural heritage. Simon Molesworth, the head of the National Trust, has described the National Heritage List as ‘abysmal’—a view Labor would share.

When I first raised concerns about the National Heritage List in March last year, only seven places were on the list—seven places in 15 months. In the last 18 months, some 26 places have been added to the National Heritage List. I am pleased that the pressure from the Australian Labor Party and from the community has increased the number of places on the list, but there is still only one site listed in the Northern Territory and South Australia. It is outrageous that only one of our 16 World Heritage sites is protected through the National Heritage List. Imagine a National Heritage List without the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu. That is what we have right now. A National Heritage List without the Great Barrier Reef is like a rugby league hall of fame without Clive Churchill.

When the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Heritage was asked in Senate estimates in May 2005 why our World Heritage sites were not on the National Heritage List, even though there was a six-month grace period under the act—a specific clause to allow this to happen smoothly—he said:

... there was clearly a misunderstanding in the department as to the act’s meaning. That, quite frankly, is a problem. Our understanding of the legislation is that the legislation was not what we thought it was.

That is from the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Heritage. If he does not know what the legislation is about, how can it be expected that the public would know what the legislation is about? It is extremely disturbing that neither the Minister for the Environment and Heritage nor his department understands the main environmental and heritage legislation that they administer.

It is also disturbing when the Howard government misrepresents our cultural heritage. On Australia Day this year, Queensland’s historic Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine was deservedly added to the National Heritage List. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage—who spoke for a few minutes on this bill in introducing it to the parliament—issued a press release about the adding of the Tree of Knowledge to the National Heritage List without mentioning the historic connection of the Tree of Knowledge with trade unions and the formation of the Australian Labor Party. This refusal to acknowledge the history of this nation was quite extraordinary behaviour from the government. Tragically, that tree in Barcaldine has been attacked.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s diseased, isn’t it?

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

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enter this debate as someone who spent nearly 30 years, prior to my arrival in this place, living in communities in the north-west of WA, where the population typically was about 30 per cent people of Aboriginal extraction. I use that term advisedly, because very few of them were full-blood Aboriginals, whether they worked on pastoral properties or lived on pastoral properties or resided in the township of Carnarvon. Nevertheless, I could include amongst my friends and acquaintances some who carried initiation scars on their chest. The interesting thing about those people at that time was that they were all so fluent in English and they could tell you all sorts of things.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fran Bailey interjecting

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the women at the desk realise that I have got the speaking engagement, Minister, I would be appreciative. No; she is too busy talking, Mr Deputy Speaker. You might ask her to be quiet.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for O’Connor can—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is only one person who gets the call in this place at any time, Minister. I have a speech to make—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Plibersek interjecting

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the giggling one from the other side giggles at everything in this place.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is serious stuff.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know. I understand. I thank the member for O’Connor.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we are going to have a girls’ chat, we know where to have it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for O’Connor wishes to continue, he might allow me to speak first.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why do you tell me to be quiet when you didn’t tell them to be? Now, let me get on with the job.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I am choosing to intervene here and I am asking you to be quiet for a moment. I was aware of the cross-table conversation between the minister and the shadow minister. I have been aware of that and have monitored that. It was conducted in a relatively quiet and civilised way. I understand that you may have been disturbed by that. I made the assessment that it was not materially affecting the delivery of your speech to the House. If you wish to, you may continue.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when we start to talk about Aboriginal heritage matters, when we have an amendment put by the opposition and we are talking about these matters, if people choose to occupy this House—and they are typically in the minority—it is not a bad idea that they listen or otherwise carry on with the business that they might have brought to the chamber. Obviously the member for Sydney did not, because she has not got any.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for O’Connor, I think that is inappropriate. What the minister at the table and the member for Sydney were discussing was in fact material to the member for Grayndler’s speech and the disagreement about that. It was relevant. I listened to that as I have listened to you.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then they can both nominate to address the House on these matters.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just need to correct the record. The minister and I were actually agreeing on a very important point that was raised by the previous speaker. We were not disagreeing. We were having a civilised conversation. I am very sorry if it disturbed the member for O’Connor. I have noticed that he does tend to interject and speak during other people’s speeches. I thought perhaps, in his significant time in the chamber, he had learnt to ignore other people’s conversations, because certainly he does tend to carry on while other people speak. But, if I have disturbed him by agreeing with his colleague the minister on a very important point relating to the legislation, I am happy to go back to my work—and I do indeed have much work with me.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sydney and I call member for O’Connor. If we can come back to the bill—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to those comments, as those who are knowledgeable in this place know, if there is a private conversation to be discussed they go behind your chair. But, having said that—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on! I picked on both sides. We do not need your help.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two points of order. Firstly, when the member for Sydney had the call and the call was withdrawn from the member for O’Connor, he failed to resume his seat, which is disorderly and contrary to the standing orders. My second point of order is that it is for you to control the House—not the member for O’Connor and not for me. We can make points of order, we can seek to have you consider certain matters, but sole authority rests with you and not the member for O’Connor. I would ask the member for O’Connor not to reflect anymore on the chair.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. Aware as I was that the member for O’Connor should have resumed his seat, I chose to overlook that, given the nature of the interaction we have had. I accept and appreciate the fact that the Chief Opposition Whip has made a valid point in regard to the operation of this House—that I in this position am the arbiter of these proceedings, not the member for O’Connor or anyone else. Accordingly, I thank him for that. I ask the member for O’Connor to resume his speech in relation to this bill.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am anxious now to conclude my speech, but I will be very anxious to remind the opposition whip of his remarks on future occasions. The issues before us today are very significant, but they also have to be addressed in a practical manner. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, in the first instance, provides for the state of Victoria to pass its own legislation with regard to Aboriginal heritage. One might wonder just where it will place the circumstances of a group of Aboriginals who, during the Commonwealth Games, chose to set up a camp in one of the principal parks of Melbourne, notwithstanding that they had never thought that a necessary activity up until the Commonwealth Games. I am not sure that it did anything for reconciliation.

I am interested in the opposition’s amendment and the words of the member for Grayndler. It is interesting that he—and I think properly so—wanted to give a significant focus to heritage. Heritage, of course, is often referred to as history. Yet there is a significant disagreement in this House on the teaching of history—whether it is a relevant matter and, to use the words of the Prime Minister, whether it should be black armband history. History is a matter of fact. Since the occupation of this landmass by persons of the Northern Hemisphere, there has been a fairly clear written record. Further, there has not been a written record of Aboriginal history. It was distributed by word of mouth.

As I have said, amongst my friends and acquaintances were fully initiated Aboriginal persons. It was not a large number. One of the points I have never forgotten was the time when one of those persons, fully initiated, said to me, ‘We never had sacred sites, but we did have sacred objects.’ They were carefully husbanded and protected. There were certain people, particularly women, who could suffer personal injury were they even to look at these sacred objects. We say they did not have a written history, but he pointed out to me how in fact the young people, prior to initiation, had to read boards—I have not seen them, but I assume they had symbols upon them—and to understand them.

One of my ancestors is recorded in a book called The Wreck of the Barque Stefano, in which an Aboriginal tribe eventually assisted two remaining survivors of a wreck. For those who have not read that book I would encourage them to do so because it is very factual. I think the Aboriginal people felt they could feed the two survivors, as compared to the other eight or nine who got ashore. The others died. The description in that story of two castaways is an extremely interesting commentary on the life of Aboriginal people before they had an influence from the European settlers—notwithstanding that they were then well settled in the Swan River territory.

The period in which they had to keep moving to follow the food trail was something which was almost too difficult for the survivors. I make that point because when an initiated Aboriginal tells you that they had sacred objects, not sacred sites, that is consistent with a people who were on the move. Reference was made to the Burrup Peninsula and a virtual mass of drawings. I assume—and I am quite happy to accept—that those drawings were done a long time ago. A lot of them are repetitive.

Whether there is an obligation on the Australian nation of 20 million people to protect every one of them is questionable in my mind. It is a view held by the state Labor government in Western Australia that some should be protected, and hopefully within the locality. That makes sense. But to prevent or discourage massive development of the associated natural gas industry, in my mind, does nothing in reality for the Australian people, be they Aboriginal or otherwise. Notwithstanding that this legislation is designed to possibly—and certainly in Victoria—further extend the role of heritage, I stand here to point out that Aboriginal heritage should be interpreted by people of Aboriginal extraction. I get quite amazed sometimes to read of Aboriginal elders who were bits of kids in Carnarvon when I was there and who are of significant Asian extraction being quoted in the media as Aboriginal elders with significant knowledge of Aboriginal heritage.

I support the protection of heritage and I strongly support the recording and teaching of history, but I am deeply concerned that these laws, produced with the greatest level of goodwill, have become an instrument that is sometimes used by non-Aboriginal people—and dare I say Hindmarsh Island—to prevent something that they do not want. I have visited Hindmarsh Island since its development. Once you observe what it is, you cannot advance any of the arguments that were put forward at the time. It is on the Murray River, stuck out over a relatively small stream of water. We know today that the drivers of that campaign were people who were not Aboriginal and who did not want development and were prepared to use arguments about Aboriginal heritage for the wrong reasons. It is extremely important that we do not.

The member for Grayndler chose to read for us components of a song. He talked about the strike at Wave Hill. I understand the desires of those people—Mr Lingiari and others—but, boy, I am not convinced that they gained very much. What did we, the legislators, do? We recognised their right to land and then locked them up in it. While they were on Wave Hill, the suggestion is that they worked for stores and rations. That was not correct. I am dashed if I know how those people who lived in communities on pastoral properties consequentially got cash to come to Carnarvon—in my case—and spend money in my hotel. They typically left their children back with the older people on the property. I do not know how they did that on rations. I do not know if they traded them when they came to town. They were paid and they lived in a reasonably safe environment, although not a salubrious one by our standards.

But what did they get when it was all over? They got rations. Unfortunately, one of the things they got was petrol. Yes, we pay them unemployment benefits and they spend those benefits at the local store and convert that cash to rations. That is a tragedy—and it has happened because of the goodwill of many people. Those people benefited little. In fact, the freedom that was referred to by the member for Grayndler was, in my view, for many of these people—and this has been well exposed in this place in recent times—a freedom to live in isolation and poverty.

There was not a person of Aboriginal extraction that I knew over those years who did not have English. I am not saying English is something special, but to lock people in with English as a second language or with no English is the greatest burden you can place on them. I have said the same when it comes to people coming to this country from other countries. However you want to interpret a requirement for them to have English to get citizenship, they need English for their own wellbeing in our country. It does not matter what your heritage is: without English, you cannot communicate and you cannot live a reasonable lifestyle.

Heritage is fine, but this law does very little for it. There has to be some definition of ‘heritage’. There has to be something that says what it is so that claims do not materialise every time somebody wants to develop a subdivision or makes the mistake—in my mind—of finding a mineral deposit within the Australian continent. You are much better off today trying Africa. That is silly. People who have genuine concerns about heritage should know about it. But where are we? The Akubra hat has become a piece of heritage, notwithstanding the fact that Aboriginal people did not wear hats. The other day I saw a woman welcomed to the country at a university. She was wearing a knitted hat with the so-called Aboriginal colours. A flag has no basis in Aboriginal culture—but it goes down pretty well with the Europeans.

So, if we want to talk about culture and about those things, let us talk briefly about property rights. When I suggested we should close down the so-called Aboriginal embassy and recreate it as what it was—a protest of great significance under a beach umbrella—suddenly I got all these letters from people telling me that every Aboriginal in Australia had the right to sit there around the fire. The Ngunnawal people did not agree with that. There is nothing more cultural in Aboriginal society than property rights and property boundaries, and it is time some of these things were recognised. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have pleasure in entering this debate to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, extremely disappointing as it is, and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I listened with interest to the member for O’Connor. I always try in these speeches to start by finding something in what the member opposite says that I agree with. I was battling right until the end when the member for O’Connor said that this bill will not do very much. I certainly agree with that, but I do not think much of anything else that he said.

It is a very disappointing piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation with a gestation period that has been sufficiently long to have produced several elephants, but it does not produce even a mouse. It is a piece of legislation more noteworthy for what it fails to do than for what it does. It is just a stopgap measure to cover a few short-term problems. They are legitimate problems that I think needed to be addressed, and therefore the opposition have correctly said that we will not deny the bill a second reading and we will allow it to pass, but it does nothing about protecting Indigenous heritage. Not one extra piece of Indigenous heritage will be protected as a result of this legislation. Some minor useful bureaucratic things will happen better, and that is good—that is one thing we need to do—but not one extra piece of Indigenous heritage will be protected as a result of this legislation, unless the Victorian government uses the opportunity provided for it to take some initiative, because this legislation takes none.

It is consistent, in my view, with the general emerging weakness that we see in the Howard government’s approach to heritage protection, in its approach to Indigenous issues and in the Howard government overall after 10 years. It seems to me that this bill reflects all those features of a very tired government that has lost its shape. It is darting hither and thither, putting fingers in dykes in various small issues, but there is no pattern, no purpose, no agenda, and no plan for the future in any of the areas of important public policy, and certainly none reflected in this bill.

There are a number of features of the amendment which I agree with and which I will refer to indirectly because they are covered by other things I want to say on the bill, but I want to pick up on one in particular which I really welcome. That is proposition (4) in the amendment which goes to the call for a review of Indigenous heritage protection. Too often in this place we call for reviews when in fact what we mean is that we are opposed to something or we have an alternative view. But in this instance it is absolutely correct. I have not felt comfortable about proposing merely in 2006 that we should implement the Evatt report. I thought it was a very good report in its time, and had we implemented it when it was brought down it would have been a big step forward, but the world has changed in a decade and I think another review would be appropriate.

I would prefer that this legislation had some of the features of the Evatt report in it. It would be much better legislation than that which we have before us. I am not being critical of Elizabeth Evatt, whose report, while I do not agree with every dot and comma of it, was very important in its day. But let us have a new look, a fresh look, post native title. The state body of legislation is much better than it was 10 years ago, it is much more comprehensive, and we have a new piece of national heritage protection legislation. I am not a great fan of that act, but it is a new piece of legislation that has been in place for some time, some protections have been put in place under it and we have the effective operation of the moveable cultural heritage legislation.

So we are in a new situation, and we also have a different sense of Indigenous consciousness and a number of Indigenous people skilled in matters of heritage interpretation and experienced in the areas of heritage, museum management and cultural heritage who could really play a very fine role in such a review. To cite an example, without wishing to embarrass her because I have never discussed it with her, I can imagine Dawn Casey playing a terrific role in leading a review of Indigenous heritage. She ran the National Museum, she is now actively engaged in Western Australia, she has worked in Victoria, she has been a consultant and she is internationally respected in this area. Not only is she a person of Indigenous heritage who knows a lot about Indigenous heritage but also she has been a senior public servant and she understands the dynamics of government. So I think that is a very fine part of the amendment.

However, what really concerns me about this legislation is the extent to which it is a step back from the 2003 commitment by former Senator Hill that is referred to in the second reading amendment. I have a lot of respect for former Senator Hill. I have disagreed with him about things, but we were in the Senate together for a long time before he became a minister and I became an opposition member in the House of Representatives. I dealt with him often and I found him a person of integrity. When he gave me his word he kept it. Yet he came into the parliament in 2003 and promised that the government recognised the shortcomings of the existing system and that reform was long overdue and said he was anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible—but it never happened.

Was Senator Hill lying? No, I do not think he was. I think he meant it. I think he believed it was going to happen, and he got rolled. Why do I think that? I think it because there is a history. When I was shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and my friend and then colleague Senator Bolkus was the shadow minister for the environment, we negotiated an agreement with Senator Hill one evening while this House was sitting that we would support some legislation that he was introducing, provided there were some amendments. I will not go back over all the detail, but we came to an agreement and that legislation was going to go forward. In those days they needed some support other than from themselves for legislation to pass the Senate. The Greens and the Democrats would not support the legislation but we said that we would agree subject to those amendments.

Senator Hill agreed in good faith, I am in no doubt. I did not do the final discussion; Senator Bolkus did—but I think they came to a genuine agreement. What happened? Senator Hill got rolled by the National Party and he was never able to proceed with the proposition in accordance with our agreement. You could say that he welched on the agreement, but I do not believe that would be fair because I am sure that he acted in good faith and set out to use his best endeavours to implement the agreement that he had come to with us. He just got rolled in his party room—or in the cabinet, as I recall.

It was indicated at that time—and it is consistent with the latter part of that extraordinary speech from the member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey—that the people who rolled Senator Hill then purported to speak on behalf of the mining industry in protecting them from the adverse consequences for them of the amendments being proposed for the Indigenous heritage legislation. I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my experience the mining industry is far ahead of the Howard government on Indigenous and heritage issues. I do not agree with all the positions taken by the Minerals Council on either heritage or Indigenous issues but I find them responsible, progressive and open. They are saying, for example: ‘Why is everybody worried about native title? We can work with native title.’ They are way ahead of the Howard government.

That is another reason why I think that if we had a review some of the fear mongering that was reflected in the contribution by the member for O’Connor, to the extent that he referred to the bill at all, would be dispelled. Time and again we find the agreement making that has flowed particularly from the native title legislation but also from some state Indigenous heritage legislation has created a very good relationship in many circumstances between miners and Indigenous groups. Just today we had another announcement of another mine going ahead as a result of an agreement with local Indigenous people. As I recall, it is in Queensland. I may be incorrect about that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am pretty sure it is in Queensland. That range of agreements is a very healthy thing and I think that, with decent Indigenous heritage legislation paralleling native title and what is left of land rights legislation after this government has finished with it, we could have a very fine body of legislation to balance the legitimate economic interests of miners and the long-term heritage and cultural, social and economic interests of Indigenous people.

There is nothing wrong with the tiny steps this bill does take in providing certainty for international cultural loans. Of course we should do that. But it does not do anything about protecting heritage. It is a useful thing to do. If there were a problem, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister outlined in the second reading speech, it should have been remedied. This legislation does it, and I have no trouble with that, but it provides no extra protection. To clean up the anachronism with regard to Victoria, where legislation was introduced in 1987 to overcome an impasse between the then Cain Labor government and an intransigent Victorian upper house, and put Victoria on the same basis as all the other states and properly allow for Victoria to put in place decent Indigenous heritage legislation with a fallback position if it did not occur—all that is a proper thing to do and I support it; but in itself this legislation does not protect one extra piece of Indigenous heritage. I am optimistic that after the Victorian election, which will be held quite soon, the Labor government will be returned and it will be able to pass a better piece of Indigenous heritage legislation than we have at the Commonwealth level. But this legislation itself does nothing about protecting Indigenous heritage. There are some technical matters about subordinate legislation which are broadly okay; I think that if I had a look at the fine print I might not agree with every dot and comma of it, but broadly it is okay. But it is not about protecting Indigenous heritage. It is about the government’s agenda, not about an Indigenous agenda.

I heard today advice that, after we finish debating this bill tonight—and we will not finish it and pass it—the government are not going to proceed with it. They are going to push it to one side and proceed with their Indigenous corporations legislation. It is another example of the government running Indigenous affairs according to their agenda and not reflecting the interests of Indigenous people. Indigenous people are not out there saying, ‘We want a new bit of legislation about how we manage our corporations.’ Broadly, I think what is being proposed for Indigenous corporations is probably a step in the right direction. But this shift just shows the government’s priorities as well as reflecting, as I said earlier, a government that has lost its shape, that is dashing hither or thither with no pattern or purpose or agenda or plan for the future.

What is wrong with this legislation is that there is not one real step forward. It is not as if there are not issues. Ten years ago the Evatt inquiry was recommending respecting customary restrictions on information, protection from disclosure, guaranteed access rights to sites of recognised significance, minimum standards for state and territory cultural heritage laws, the establishment of Indigenous cultural heritage bodies and particularly going to questions about intellectual property.

All of those issues are outstanding today. The one thing that is probably not so necessary—although I think Commonwealth legislation still needs to address it, but it is not so pressing—is the question of minimum standards for state and territory cultural heritage laws. There has been significant improvement in every state with regard to that—certainly, in a substantial number of states; I think in all of them.

There are important issues being addressed with the new capacity the internet gives people to have layers of information password-protected so that that information can be protected digitally and disseminated broadly. But a subset of that information could be made accessible only to people with a particular level of knowledge within the Indigenous community, and that could be password protected and accessed only by those people. We should find the Commonwealth government giving assistance for those sorts of initiatives—modern ways of protecting heritage, making that which is generally available broadly available and protecting it for those people who have the right to special and sacred knowledge.

AIATSIS, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, based here in my electorate, has got some very promising propositions in that area that a government serious about addressing Indigenous heritage should be looking at. There may be a better proposition about than the Indigenous cultural network idea that I have seen at AIATSIS, and I would welcome that. It is not for me with my level of knowledge and expertise to say, ‘This is unquestionably the best proposition.’ But it is a direction in which we should go in protecting cultural heritage, preserving it and yet making it available—not locking it up so no-one can know and not making that which should be secret and sacred accessible to those who should not have access to it.

Modern technology allows us new ways of doing this. It was what the member for O’Connor could not seem to work out: heritage and cultures develop, change and evolve. I find his two propositions extraordinary. One is that nomadic people cannot have sacred sites—that would be a great revelation to a lot of nomadic cultures in countries all around the world; they would be amazed to find that it is inconsistent with a nomadic existence to have sacred sites. But I heard the member for O’Connor say it, and I am sure he believes it. Two, I was astonished to hear him say we did not need to protect the rock art at the Burrup because some of it was duplication. It would be terrible. Perhaps Monet painted too many haystacks, so we do not need to keep more than one; we could probably get rid of the rest and save a lot of money! It was one of those propositions where you have to pinch yourself to make sure you are awake when you hear it and then you say, ‘No, it’s really a nightmare.’

The one thing I will say about this legislation coming forward, poor and inadequate as it is, is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss the fact that Australian heritage needs to be protected. At the core of that protection is the need to protect the incredibly valuable and unique Indigenous heritage of this country. It is an obligation placed on our society—all of us; Indigenous and non-Indigenous—to recognise that we have in our country the world’s oldest living culture. We want to use our skills, our resources, our knowledge and modern technology to enable it to be protected. This legislation does nothing about that. That is why I support the amendment. I support the legislation because it will administratively make certain things operate more smoothly. I look forward to the review called for by the member for Grayndler and to an incoming Labor government actually introducing a decent piece of legislation that does something about protecting Indigenous heritage.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the two minutes I have left, I want to acknowledge a few of the comments the member for Fraser has made. I thank him for his acknowledgement of Senator Robert Hill and his integrity, and for his recognition that the Minerals Council is a responsible group working with the Indigenous community and the community at large for better outcomes. I am appreciative of the member for Fraser’s comments about Justice Evatt and that times have moved on, that we do have a stronger body of native title legislation and that state and territory legislation has moved apace over the last decade or so. In terms of the role of the government—that is, the government’s agenda, to quote the member for Fraser—at the end of the day, the national government has responsibility for this area. I believe that this legislation meets that very sensitive balance and does respect Indigenous people.

I want to go to two very important parts of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, where the amendments relate to loaned objects of important Australian cultural heritage held overseas. It seems to be inherently practical that this should be cleared up in this legislation. I welcome the legislation, particularly in relation to Victoria—and I am grateful because I was not aware of the history, that this had come about from a lower house and an upper house deadlock. It is the challenge of Federation to tidy these things up from time to time.

Debate interrupted.