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

Last evening when we were debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, we were going through the reasons for the legislation. It is perhaps worth referring to the report of the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Many ways forward: report of the inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in Indigenous communities. I was the chairman of that committee, and on page 129 we stated:

Incorporation

4.71    Indigenous organisations can be incorporated (established as corporate entities) through a variety of legislative mechanisms including those under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (ORAC), or through various State and Territory incorporating agencies. Bodies may wish to incorporate in order to fulfil legal requirements or to meet funding or lending bodies’ requirements.

4.72    ORAC articulated why Indigenous organisations choose to incorporate:

Communities cannot survive without incorporated bodies because they open the door to funding, land-holding, commercial enterprises [and] economic independence…

4.73    The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (the ACA Act), administered by ORAC, was enacted for the purpose of providing Indigenous groups and communities with a simple and inexpensive means of incorporation …

That sets the scene for this situation. In October 2002 ORAC advised the committee that there were approximately 2,800 corporations incorporated under the ACA Act. It is important to understand, when we focus on heritage protection within the national context, that, while the integrity of heritage and culture is very important, it is part of a much wider agenda. Therefore, when we move to make these alterations to the Victorian situation or to do with overseas property et cetera, we should remember always that the Indigenous heritage issues fit within an estimated 2,800 corporations under the ACA Act, which is about half of all the 6,000 or so corporations within Australia. That reminds us that, as important as the heritage and culture are, there are also the issues of health, education, employment and all the other various issues which are important to the present-day situation for Indigenous people.

As I said last night, I wish the bill a speedy passage. But, in the context of the broader agenda for the Indigenous people of Australia, we need to bring some perspective and understand that this is a practical recognition of the changes in corporate law over a period of time and of the balance between corporate law and heritage and culture. It is important that the government move with the times and bring this legislation into place. I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 seeks to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to provide greater certainty to international cultural loan arrangements by ensuring that declarations made under the act cannot prevent the return of objects imported temporarily to Australia with a certificate of exemption under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. It provides for the repeal of part IIA and other provisions in the act that only apply to places in Victoria, to enable the Victorian government to administer Aboriginal heritage protection in Victoria directly through its own legislation. It brings the act into line with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 by making amendments to clarify which class of instruments contained in the act are not exempt legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and are accordingly subject to its provisions. That is schedule 3.

The bill makes consequential amendments to the Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987. When the bill becomes an act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 will still apply to Victoria, but it will apply in the same manner as it applies to other states and territories. Removal of the specific references to Victoria will place Victoria on the same footing in relation to protection of Aboriginal cultural property as the other states and territories under the act. However, the act falls far short of the expectations of Indigenous Australians and indeed, I would have thought, falls far short of the expectations of other people interested in this area of public policy.

I note that an amendment has been moved by the member for Grayndler, which I believe should be supported by this House. The bill does not deal with the broader Indigenous heritage issues, and it is really a step back from the apparent commitment made by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Robert Hill, on 20 August 2003, when he told the Senate:

We gave undertakings a couple of days ago that the sites bill—

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill—

would be brought to the Senate as quickly as possible.

The minister has since reaffirmed to me that negotiations and consultations are continuing to take place. We recognise the shortcomings in the existing system. Reform of that is long overdue. We are anxious to have a new and better piece of legislation put in place as quickly as possible. As the Labor amendment indicates, it is clear to us that, whilst this legislation is new and may provide some limited improvement, it does not meet the undertakings given by former minister Robert Hill, who was then Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Here comes Hopalong Cassidy! I welcome my touch football colleague into the chamber. Those who are in the gallery need to know that Minister Hockey had an accident playing touch football the other morning. Unfortunately, he collided with another minister. They are great mates, these people. He collided with the other minister, kicked him in the kidneys and sprained his ankle! Unfortunately, Joe is carrying the burden of that injury, and I wish him a very rapid recovery so we can see him out on the touch football field next week.

I might say, again for the benefit of those in the gallery, that when we from this side of the chamber and those from the other side play sport together it is one of the few occasions we actually share things together. Whilst we may disagree very strongly in this place, and indeed very aggressively attack one another at the dispatch box, we are able to put those differences aside when we go out of this building and spend time together. I think that is a lesson for all of us. It is a good indication of what we should be able to do in this place—have a healthy debate, have differences, but be able to walk out of here, not necessarily as best mates but as friends who can share time together and can experience seeing a comedy act out on the touch football field.

Nevertheless, let me go back to the legislation before us. This legislation is a very cynical piece of legislation. It takes advantage of the government’s Senate majority. It is put up cynically, the government knowing that it will get through. The minority report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee inquiry pointed out that the bill continues to ignore many of the substantive recommendations of the 1996 Evatt inquiry, which reviewed the act and made some very strong and specific recommendations. These included: firstly, respecting customary restrictions on information, including gender restricted information; secondly, protection from disclosure contrary to customary law restrictions, including guidelines on the kinds of information courts can seek and exemptions from freedom of information laws; thirdly, guaranteed access rights to sites of recognised significance for those recognised as being allowed to do so under customary law; fourthly, minimum standards for state and territory cultural heritage laws, including automatic blanket protection for sites clearly falling within these standards; fifthly, the establishment of an Aboriginal cultural heritage agency and Indigenous cultural heritage bodies controlled by Aboriginal members, representative of Aboriginal communities, with responsibilities for site evaluation and administration; and, lastly, protection of all aspects of Indigenous heritage, including intellectual property.

Unfortunately, this bill falls far short on those recommendations. These matters are extremely important for Indigenous Australians, and it is about time this government sought to understand their importance and priority for Indigenous Australians. The government is, of course, yet to come good on its commitment for consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about these matters. It continues to refuse to accept that a process of negotiation is good for business, it empowers people to accept responsibility, it makes friends and, importantly, it works.

As with other aspects of this government’s approach to Indigenous policy and dealing with Indigenous disadvantage, it simply does not care enough about celebrating and protecting the complex heritage of Indigenous Australians. Sadly, we say that here the proof of the pudding is in the eating—and this bill clearly demonstrates that it is not a bill from a government that really cares. It is clear that the government does not care enough about what Aboriginal people think or want, and that is sad for all of us. From the Prime Minister down to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, it just looks like they want Indigenous people to scurry away—to go away and not be on the radar.

It is 60 years on from the infamous policy of ‘smoothing the pillow of the dying race’. This government has been in power now for 10 years, yet it still harks back to assimilation for the intellectual wellspring of its policy formulation—and, again, that is sad for all of us. But, of course, it is a one-way process of assimilation. This government has no interest in sharing recognition and valuing the things that Aboriginal people hold worthy of celebrating. Last month, the Gurindji people celebrated the 40th anniversary of the walk-off by stockmen from the Vestey owned Wave Hill Cattle Station. Who was there at that celebration from the Australian government? Not the Prime Minister or the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—in fact, there was no-one there representing the Australian government.

The Gurindji people, like many others, recognise the significance of the Wave Hill event, and they put a huge effort into the celebrations. I was there, accompanied by some of my colleagues—including the member for Canberra, Mrs Ellis, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and a large number of other dignitaries. The Gurindji people, despite their efforts, were unable to attract the interest of the Commonwealth government. As it happens, the Gurindji people are seeking heritage protection for the significant sites of the walk-off.

It is worth noting that, since 1996, only one declaration involving Indigenous heritage issues has been made under the act. Prior to that, from 1994 until 1996, 21 declarations had been made by the former Labor government. Under this act, Indigenous places that are considered to be of national significance may be listed on the National Heritage List. But, due to the way that the Howard government has administered the provisions of the act, a place of significance to a particular Aboriginal community is not eligible to be listed unless it can be established that it is also a matter of significance to the broader Australian community.

Wave Hill is widely recognised as the site of a highly significant sequence of events in the history of the development of Aboriginal land rights and, indeed, the history of this country. Also, let us not lose sight of the fact that Wave Hill was the site of a highly significant event in Australian industrial history. It was the first sustained response to a case that was arbitrated by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission—a watershed in its own right. It brought the union movement—hesitantly at first but certainly to be sure—to bring its considerable influence to bear on righting Aboriginal disadvantage. We already know what this government thinks of Wave Hill. In July 2004, Minister Ian Campbell said that it would be given priority consideration for listing on the National Heritage List. And what has happened since? Absolutely nothing.

We have had the 30th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s famous ‘handful of sand’. Who could forget Gough Whitlam pouring the sand through the hands of Vincent Lingiari to demonstrate, in a very symbolic way, the handing back of the country to Indigenous Australians? It was the first time it had happened in Australian history—yet this government will not recognise it. Of course, the other celebration was the 40th anniversary of the walk-off from Wave Hill—the longest strike in Australian history. The strike lasted in excess of nine years, and the minister has said not a word about this application.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.