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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

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

I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks in relation to this very important matter, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005. When I concluded my remarks just prior to question time, I was about to refer to some remarks made by a colleague of mine in another place. During an earlier debate on this bill he pointed out:

If you want a site of national significance in terms of land rights, surely Wave Hill would meet that criterion. In terms of political and cultural significance surely that site would meet all reasonable criteria. But what you have is a political decision made by the government to not act on this because it finds it to be symbolically embarrassing. It is a symbol it does not want to face up to because it goes to those fundamental questions about the rights of Indigenous people. There are some issues that this government wants to turn its back on. It does not want to address these matters because its version of the cultural wars is prosecuted to the exclusion of those who disagree with it, and this is one very good example.

In the context of the debates that we have been having recently about the Prime Minister’s aversion to what he terms the ‘black armband view of history’ and his support of the very contentious views of Keith Windschuttle, I think it is timely to remind ourselves of the importance of Vincent Lingiari and the events at Wave Hill in Australia’s history, not just because they were very important events but because they are not known. They are not known, because people do not want to acknowledge them. For those on the government side, we know that the culture warriors have not been idle in debunking the significance of Wave Hill.

A recent article on the events in the Weekend Australian quoted approvingly from a new historical interpretation of the walk-off. In the culture wars version, pastoral managers were deeply concerned when the walk-offs began. Writer Nicolas Rothwell said:

With a vague sense of regret, the station managers changed the economics of their industry. Far from feeling that they had underpaid their workers, they believed (and the figures support them) that they had been obliged for years to shoulder the hidden welfare costs for a large community of dependents.

It should be no surprise that these matters are contended by those people who were there—those Indigenous Australians who were suffering at the hands of some pastoralists; not all, of course, but some. But the intention of the rewriting of this particular history is to repackage the oppression of the time and focus on the station owners’ alleged concern and sorrow about Aboriginal stockmen acting against their own interests by being paid equal wages.

Of course, fundamentally it is wrong. And it is poor history. The true picture of the conditions that created the walk-off at Wave Hill, Newcastle Waters and elsewhere is to be found in the pioneering study of the industry, The end of an era, by the eminent anthropologists Ronald and Catherine Berndt. It can also be found in Ann McGrath’s excellent study, Born in the cattle. But most importantly it can still be found in the living heritage of today’s Gurindji people. One of the original strikers, one of those people present at that time, was a man I know quite well, Mick Rangiari, affectionately known as ‘Hoppy’. He is now, sadly, very old and frail and confined almost permanently to a wheelchair. He has lived his entire life with a poorly treated injury from his work as a stockman. To put it more succinctly, at the 40th anniversary celebrations he said that Aboriginal stockmen had been treated ‘like dogs’.

It is very important that, whilst we understand that there may be some contention about the interpretation of historical events, we refer to the original source material. And in this case the original source material is in the minds of the Aboriginal people who were alive and involved and engaged in this particular struggle. Of course, in the end it was not just a strike about poor conditions. It became a symbol for the quest for recognition of rights as landowners and of land rights. That is why it is so important for Australia to recognise and understand these stories.

In the dialogue that we have in this place, in our ruminating over the history of this country, this particular story and other stories permeate the landscape of Dagaragu and Kalkaringi. While the Aboriginal names have returned and all but erased names like Wattie Creek and Hooker Creek, the story of the walk-off is part of the legacy of today’s Gurindji. They want to offer that story to the nation as part of a heritage precinct that will, at the same time, be a tourist attraction for people braving the true outback Australia—the remote communities of the north.

My Northern Territory colleague Marion Scrymgour has already placed Wave Hill on the NT heritage register. She has pledged the support of the NT government and has already allocated about $200,000 for the heritage precinct project. The NT tourism commission has successfully promoted Wave Hill visits as part of visits to Gregory National Park and the surrounding region. That promotion means a growth in four-wheel drive visits from zero five years ago to 18,000 last year. That means business in a place that needs an economy. But we are still waiting on the Commonwealth minister, sadly, to do the right thing. The lesson from Wave Hill is clear: support for a local appeal for heritage protection does not only mean a historical cultural asset is recognised and protected; it can also mean business opportunities arising from tourism. In this particular instance, it means really decent employment options for young Aboriginal Territorians.

Tourists gain something when they experience something of Aboriginal heritage, whether it is rock art paintings thousands of years old or the true story of the strike that happened 40 years ago and is still shaking the world. That something is a walk in someone else’s shoes and a new view of the world. It is a precursor to understanding and true reconciliation, which I know is not a comfortable term these days with this government. If the Prime Minister were actually interested in understanding true reconciliation, he would understand how important Aboriginal heritage is to our image of ourselves as Australians and he would be doing his absolute utmost to protect and support it. Unfortunately, this bill is all too clear evidence that he has not got the ticker for the task.

I want to make sure that we understand the import of this piece of legislation, the tawdry way it has been dealt with by this government in the past and the government’s failure to live up to expectations in this current bill. I strongly urge the House to support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Grayndler. I want to emphasise my strong belief that it is in our national interests to recognise and support heritage sites, such as those at Wave Hill, which applaud and recognise the role of these brave Indigenous Australians. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.