Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a day on which this House historically has unanimously passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, it is a great honour and appropriate for this House to address the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013. Let me begin by noting that it is my sincere hope and belief that the process started today on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 will see that bill pass through the Senate and in turn lead to a question for constitutional recognition to be put to the Australian people through a referendum. It is my hope and belief that will ultimately be passed if good faith can be shown by all sides, which I believe will be the case. It is a very momentous occasion today and I am delighted that this House has played its part.

This particular bill addresses broader questions about engagement with Indigenous Australia, the preservation of our environment and the maintenance of our resources. The history of this bill is that in previous decades, prior to the creation of Kakadu National Park, there were at least three areas within what is now the Kakadu region that were considered for mining and exploration, primarily for uranium. These were the Coronation Hill area, the Ranger uranium mine and the Koongarra area.

At a personal level, having had responsibility for Kakadu National Park for two years as parliamentary secretary and having spent considerable time there under the guidance of traditional owners and the still Director of National Parks, the very professional Peter Cochrane, I can say that when people talk about the majesty of Kakadu they are also and in particular referring to the majesty of the Koongarra region. This really is what people refer to as 'Kakadu': Jim Jim, Twin Falls, Ubirr Rock, Koongarra and Yellow Water. Those places are some of the most majestic Indigenous land and natural features in all of Australia.

Against that background, our policy position—at least since I became involved, which was in 2005, with particular thanks to the work of Senator Nigel Scullion and the member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs—has been that we will be guided by the views of the traditional owners.

The traditional owners have made it absolutely clear not only that do they not envisage Koongarra ever being mined but that they now seek for it to be returned from its status as an island for potential development excluded from the rest of the national park and for it now to be reincorporated into the national park. We respect that decision, and, in fact, we welcome that decision.

I also note that this bill is symbolically important, but its basic aims, I am advised by the Northern Territory government, have in fact been achieved by the domestic legislation within the Northern Territory. To a certain extent I want to represent the views of the territory government that they feel as if it has been presented in a way which undermined their laws. Having worked with the Chief Minister's office and the mining minister's office, I appreciate enormously their contribution, but I do want to speak up for and represent their views that the Northern Territory law, in their judgement, was already adequate to protect Koongarra. Having said that, they have been very cooperative. The Minerals Council has supported this decision. Natasha Griggs and Senator Scullion have also shown great respect for the traditional owners, and that has been the coalition's position since at least 2005. It is one which I reaffirm on behalf of the coalition today.

In short, what occurred was that the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 carved out the Koongarra project area and allowed for possible development. Over the years, there have been attempts to have this area given consent; none has been given. I believe that none will ever in the future be likely to be given, and nor would I like to see this area mined because of its majestic status, its environmental status, its iconic status and, above all else, because of its absolute centrality to the heart of Indigenous identity within the Kakadu and Arnhem regions. As part of this process I note that in 2006 I had the great privilege of signing off on the reincorporation of 29 other mining leases which were within the Coronation Hill area back into the Kakadu National Park. That was the completion of a long and, shall we say, challenging process which dated back to some very significant times. But our history and our heritage has been to recognise that the traditional owners should have the ultimate say.

Against that background, I am delighted to offer the coalition's support. I recognise that the territory has legitimate concerns about it being presented that there is inadequate protection when my belief and their belief is that it was already the case, but this bill ultimately gives voice to the concerns of Indigenous people and to the will of Indigenous people, and for that reason the coalition fully supports the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013. I note in offering that support that this should not be taken as a licence on other areas and other issues. Each will be considered on its merits, but we have considered the merits, we have considered the will of the Indigenous people and we are delighted to add support to that as well as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():

Firstly, let me acknowledge the passage of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012 earlier this morning. Whilst I do not want to take up a lot of time talking about it, I do want to make mention of what a privilege it is to be a member of this parliament at times when we actually effectively shake hands across the aisle and join in supporting a single piece of legislation. In this context, as I spoke in support of that legislation in the other chamber earlier this week, I made the observation that there are a few of us in this place who have had the privilege to be a party, in one way or another, either as a participant, as an observer or as a member of this parliament in some very significant events over the last 25 or 30 years. If we contemplate that for just a moment, we think of the passage of the ATSIC legislation initially in the Hawke government or we can go back further to the passage of the first land rights legislation in 1976. Then, as we moved forward, we saw the passage of the native title legislation, which was very divisive because there was not unanimity across the parliament. There was not a view held by some conservatives in the country, not only in parliament, about the importance of native title, how it should be enacted and why it should exists; nevertheless, it is in place. As a result, it is now part of our national fabric, it is something which is accepted and agreed upon and we deal with. I can go back to the divisive debates around national land rights in the 1980s. Pat Dodson, who was here earlier this morning, was then the Director of the Central Land Council, and I was his policy adviser. We were involved in rallies in front of the Old Parliament House trying to ensure that any new national land rights legislation should reflect the values, at a minimum, of the Northern Territory Land Rights Act, which was passed in 1976. Of course, we were opposed in that process by conservatives on both sides of the chamber, by conservative premiers such as Brian Burke in Western Australia and by conservative members of this parliament who were voting for the then coalition. As we move further forward—I want to refer to the comments made by previous speaker around Kakadu, and I will do that later—things which were going to be so disruptive, so divisive and would cause mayhem in the Australian economy have been demonstrated to be absolutely false in those assertions. As a person of privilege, as a person who has now been in this chamber since 1987—except for a small interregnum—it has been a great privilege for me as a person and as a member for Lingiari where about 42 per cent of my constituents are Aboriginal people, most of whom live on their own land, to witness this legislation's passing.

It has also been a great privilege for me to be an observer, and sometime participant, in these debates—not only around ATSIC and those other pieces of legislation I referred to earlier in relation to the native title legislation but to be in this chamber when the national apology was given. It was a momentous and historic day, as is today a momentous and historic day. All those differences and divisions of the past have been put behind us, as they should have been, and we have come to a unanimous view about the need for an act of recognition. That, to me, shows great progress.

I might just pay a compliment to those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have been involved in leadership positions over the last 25, 30, 35, 40 years. Their resilience and their dignity have led us to this point. Their commitment and their application, their refusal to accept defeat, have led us to this point. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart for their personal sacrifice—many are now gone. I know that those who I know so well, who are no longer with us, will be overlooking this place with great pride today.

My constituent 39-year-old Jeffrey Lee is a member of the Djok clan. He is a senior custodian of Koongarra, an area of land of more than 1,200 hectares adjacent to the stunning Nourlangie Rock, one of Kakadu National Park's most popular destinations. In addition to extraordinary ecological biodiversity around its beautiful billabongs, Koongarra includes ancient rock galleries, some more than 25,000 years old; first settlement paintings, at least one of which may be of scenes associated with Ludwig Leichhardt's 1848 traverse from South-East Queensland to Port Essington on the Cobourg Peninsula; and, of course, most importantly, sacred burial sites.

Perhaps for some Koongarra also includes something even more significant: more than 14,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, probably worth more than $5 billion at current prices. It was more significant for the Fraser government, for instance, which in 1979 refused to incorporate Koongarra into Kakadu National Park because of its enormous uranium potential. It was more significant also for the giant French energy company Arriva, which for decades has wanted to mine Koongarra but has never been able to gain the traditional owners' permission to explore the site. But it was not more significant for Jeffrey Lee—even though his approval of exploration would have made him one of the richest men in Australia if not in the world. This man works as a ranger on his traditional country for little more than $1,000 a fortnight. This man is not interested in the soaring price of uranium, because the protection of his country is much more important for him. Last year, through the Northern Land Council, he informed the then minister for the environment, Peter Garrett, that he wanted Koongarra incorporated as soon as possible into Kakadu so as to be protected by its World Heritage status and law. As he said then: 'This is my country. Look, it is beautiful. And I fear somebody will disturb it.' He went on to say: 'When you dig a hole in the country, you are killing me. I don't worry about money at all.'

Jeffrey Lee grew up hunting and fishing and fulfilling his traditional cultural obligations to Koongarra. For him, according to his beliefs, Koongarra is where the rainbow serpent entered the ground. He wants it left undisturbed—for his children, grandchildren and indeed for future generations of the broader world community. And we in this government agree with him.

The incorporation of Koongarra into Kakadu National Park is part of the Gillard government's commitment to protect our quality of life and to build a sustainable Australia. For us, the future of Koongarra, and indeed Kakadu, is tourism, not mining. Australia's 18 World Heritage sites generate $12 billion annually and support over 120,000 jobs across the country. Many of the jobs supported by tourism in Kakadu are jobs for Aboriginal Australians, many of whom are local traditional owners who have an attachment to their country that can be counted not in terms of tonnes of uranium oxide but only in terms of quality of life and cultural and ecological sustainability. Traditional owner Jeffrey Lee of the Djok clan, I salute you.

The history of uranium mining in Kakadu, including the Koongarra site, provides us all with some salutary lessons about Indigenous Australians, Australian parliaments and the mining industry and the relationship between them. By the mid-1970s, four sustainable deposits of uranium had been identified in the area that is now referred to as the Koongarra, Nabarlek, Ranger and Jabiluka sites. It was in the 1970s that the Australian government, through the Ranger inquiry, first approved proposals by mining companies to construct mining and milling facilities in the Ranger mine and at Nabarlek in the Kakadu region. These four deposits were all excised from the newly created Kakadu National Park because of their high uranium prospectivity. Under the management of ERA, Energy Resources Australia, and with the approval of the Fraser government, mining commenced at the Ranger mine in 1980.

North of the Ranger mine is the Jabiluka site, to which a secondary company, Pan Continental Ltd, was granted approval to mine by the same government in 1982. Gundjehmi traditional owners bitterly opposed the proposed mine. The following year saw the electionof the Hawke government, and with it the immediate suspension of thatapproval. However, the defeat of Labor in 1996 saw the new Prime Minister, John Howard, announce renewed plans to mine at Jabiluka. ERA had replaced Pan Con as the key stakeholder for managementof the mine. It had completed an environmentalimpact study, whichwas approved by the Howard governmentin 1997. Spirited resistance by Gundjehmi, led by senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula, and a coalition of environmental supporters, forced ERA to suspend mining operations in 1998. ERA have not pursued the reopening of the Jabiluka mine, and today, to their absolute credit, have a policy of respect for traditional owners' wishes regarding their lands. This more enlightened policy benefits Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they are where this company exists, and the miners as well. With the closing of the chapter on mining at Koongarra by Jeffrey Lee and this government, we see a further example of a Labor government listening to Indigenous interests.

I might just go for a moment, if I may, to the comments made by the previous speaker about the Northern Territory government and the chamber of mines. I full well remember the hideous approach of the former conservative governments in the Northern Territory, under various chief ministers, around the issue of Aboriginal land rights and mining in the Northern Territory. They were supported by the chamber of mines and some of the largest miners in this country. I know too well about the bribes that were offered to the traditional owners of the Koongarra site to accede to the request for mining. But to their credit—to their great and everlasting credit—they resolved amongst themselves not to accede to the bribery, not to accede to the overbearing tactics of government or the mining industry and to resist absolutely to the last any proposal to mine Koongarra.

I also remember visiting the Ranger uranium province as far back as 1976. At that time, there was an exploratory hole in the ground. I was a teacher in the Northern Territory and, as it happened, I felt unwell this particular day. With a colleague of mine—a woman who remains a friend to this day—we visited the site because the father of one of the kids that we taught was the manager. So we inspected the site and talked about uranium mining—to which I was bitterly opposed. In the years that followed, I was involved in resisting and opposing uranium mining in the Northern Territory and the exploitation of Ranger, Koongarra, Jabiluka and Nabarlek. As we know, that resistance proved impossible and ultimately the traditional owners did a deal around the Ranger mine which has been of benefit to them financially over the years but has still raised many perplexing questions about its impact on the cultural and social life and indeed the very existence of Aboriginal people in the region.

But we have moved forward. We are here today doing something which now has the support of the opposition and we now hear that it has the support of the Northern Territory conservative government. I say 'thank you' to them, because it is about bloody time. It is about time that you looked at yourselves the mirror, looked at what happened in the past, defined it in your own mind and declared to yourselves that it would never happen again. We need to move forward together to make sure that we live in a period of reconciliation into the future, acknowledge the importance of Aboriginal land and understand why my constituent Mr Lee took the action he did and why we have passed this legislation today.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013. Last week, Djok senior traditional owner Jeffrey Lee AM was here in the parliament when this legislation was introduced into the House. Jeffrey Lee is to be commended for his tireless and courageous efforts to protect his country up against some very powerful interests. Because of his endurance, Koongarra was finally recognised in June 2011 by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee as having both cultural and environmental significance.

Jeffrey Lee made a statement when this bill was introduced:

I have said no to uranium mining at Koongarra, because I believe that the land and my cultural beliefs are more important than mining and money. Money comes and goes, but the land is always here. It always stays if we look after it and it will look after us.

In 1979, the land Jeffrey has looked after—an area of 1,228 hectares right beside the famous Nourlangie Rock, with its remarkable rock art—was excluded from the Kakadu National Park because of its potential uranium resources. The French owned company AREVA—the largest nuclear energy company in the world—owned the lease and wished to mine the 14,000 tonnes of uranium there, so much so that they attempted to stop the UNESCO World Heritage Committee from debating and deciding to fold the area into Kakadu National Park at the express wishes of the Djok traditional owners.

Koongarra should have been in Kakadu long ago, but it will finally have the protection it deserves upon the passage of this bill when it is officially included in the park. This is a win for the long-term future of the region and for the integrity of the Kakadu World Heritage area.

But let us be clear, Kakadu—the jewel in Australia's tourism industry, with its natural wonders such as sandstone escarpments, huge waterfalls, tropical rainforests and wetlands alive with birds—is threatened by another mine. The Ranger uranium mine was literally forced on the Aboriginal people when their right to refuse was ripped away through legislation in 1978. Ranger is a leaking disaster. My colleague, Senator Ludlam, has established through Senate estimates hearings that over 100,000 litres of contaminated water leaks into the ground beneath Kakadu National Park every day. In addition to that, over 150 leak spills and licence breaches have been recorded since the mine opened. In 2011, uranium processing at Ranger was suspended for six months following a tropical wet season that left the tailings dam near capacity.

Yet, despite ongoing problems and ageing infrastructure, the ERA is considering the expansion of Ranger. The construction of a tunnel for underground mining in the guise of 'exploration' has commenced without any environmental scrutiny. This exploration is clearly the first stage of what could become a new underground mine. The Greens strongly believe—along with the many people who have written to the environment minister, Tony Burke—that the minister should take up his responsibility to scrutinise this nuclear action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The minister would be protecting the environmental and cultural significance of Kakadu through so doing.

While I call upon the environment minister to protect Kakadu from the ongoing threat at Ranger and want to stress that this bill is misnamed—Kakadu is not complete until Ranger is closed—I wish to commend him today for delivering on a Labor election promise to bring Koongarra into Kakadu National Park, which the Greens welcome and congratulate him for.

The ALP still has a very confused nuclear policy.    On one hand, the mining and exporting of the uranium that literally fuelled the Fukushima nuclear disaster is promoted. Labor also wants to pour uranium into India, a state with a history of illicit nuclear procurement and inadequate export controls and a country that is continuing to expand its nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities, making the subcontinent the hottest nuclear stand-off in the world. On the other hand, today Kakadu is protected from more uranium mining with this bill. On one hand, Labor supports the use of nuclear weapons in our own security policies by participating in the US nuclear umbrella and thereby legitimising the possession of nuclear weapons. On the other, it strives to be an advocate of nuclear disarmament, sponsoring the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

Despite this profound confusion, sometimes Labor gets nuclear policy right, and today is one of those times. I commend this bill to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure in future years when I look back at my time in this place I will remember some events that I will think back on very fondly, or with some pride. The day we introduced the legislation that abolished Work Choices, for example, was one of those times. And the day we introduced the legislation on the NDIS, just last year, was undoubtedly one of those days. But, for me, so is this one, because the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013 is a very special bill that tells a very, very special story.

Most of us, particularly where I live, down in Sydney, know of Kakadu. We have the images of Kakadu in our mind; it is part of our understanding of what Australia is as a nation. We assume that it will be there and that one day we will go and see it. I hope that one day I do—and I am sure I will. But many of us probably did not realise that part of it, when Kakadu was first created back in 1979, was excluded from the original boundaries.

My ears sparked up when I first heard the name Jeffrey Lee, because my state counterpart is called Geoffrey Lee—a different person, not this Jeffrey Lee, although a fine man in his own right. When I heard the story of Jeffrey Lee, it was news to me that this part of Kakadu—this Koongarra area—had been exempted from the park and was now finally being brought home. The story of traditional owners fighting to have the lands they care for brought into the park is a great one—the story of Jeff travelling to Paris to personally put the case for World Heritage listing and managing to succeed. The action that this parliament will, I assume, take today in passing this bill that puts that part of Kakadu back where it belongs as part of one of our great environmental parks is, in its own right, a great one.

We do a lot of things in this place—tax law, Centrelink, consumer law, health policy and education policy. And the thing I am always aware of is that of all of the things we have worked on in this House there is actually only one that we did not create by living together as people, and that is the environment. Everything else we govern in this place is actually a thing of our own creation. The environment is different, because it is this profound creation, this profound thing that we as people could not ever have imagined, let alone created. It contains things that are of such marvel and such wonder, when you go out and stand in it, that it puts us very much in our place. We sometimes pretend to govern it, I think, when we decide what we can and cannot do on it. But the environment is of course something that exists incredibly well—and much better—without us.

We also introduced some other good bills last week. In fact, it was a particularly good week for the environment. This bill, of course, was introduced into the House. There was also an announcement by the WA government that it had created a substantial marine park in the Horizontal Falls area, an 80-mile beach area near Port Hedland and the Kimberley, and effectively extended the federal marine park all the way into the tidal areas of one of the most significant bird habitats in the world. In fact, it is considered to be the largest breeding ground for migratory shore birds and waders in the world. So that also was this interesting little moment in this House, when the work of this place contributed to the creation of an extraordinary space where the marvels of this earth can flourish and survive and be available to us all and to future generations.

The announcement by the minister to extend the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was also made last week, with an additional 170,000 hectares in the Tasmanian wilderness—again, a great decision by the minister. And of course there was an announcement on the Murray-Darling, also a substantial one. I spent some time on the Darling in the last years of the drought, and I remember a mud puddle, I have to say. I looked at that and thought, 'This river system cannot survive what we do to it.' So, again, it was a great decision, as was the decision to allow applications for urban rivers in Caring for our Country. They were great announcements that, along with this one last week, made it a great week for our environment.

It is unfortunate, particularly in my state of New South Wales, that we have some things happening that are not so good for the environment. I spend a lot of time in our national parks; I am a great camper. I am lucky enough to have actually seen a cassowary—and, while I say 'lucky enough', it actually took a lot of effort to get out to a place where I could see one. I have seen a lyrebird in full dance mode, trying to attract its mate—and if you have not seen that you have missed one of the great performances of all time; it puts all of our actors to shame! I have heard a lyrebird trying to imitate the call of a kookaburra. They get all the bits right; they just don't get them in the right order. You can always tell it is a lyrebird because it is kind of 'right and wrong'. I have got up in the morning and heard very young magpies trying to learn to call. I have heard black mynas practicing their songs in their early years. And I thoroughly enjoy being out in a place where I can marvel at these wonders of nature.

I have spent a bit of time in the last years in swamps, surprisingly. The first camping trip my partner took me on was to a swamp and I got to tell people that we had gone away to a swamp for the weekend. I am particularly fond of alpine swamps

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, he is a good guy, he has got good taste. Swamps are great places if you are into the wonders of nature, they are quite special. But the alpine swamps are very, very special. They are special because they are almost a mistake. They happen because, just below the snow melt, the land is flat, and as the cold air comes down it stops the vegetation from growing. As the snow melts the sphagnum moss swamps develop. The material, called sphagnum moss, which is actually used in nappies because it is so absorbent, extends quite significantly far below the land and absorbs the snow melt and then releases it slowly over a period of time. They are phenomenal, almost a mistake of nature, a fluke of nature and something that human beings would never have thought of and could not have created. They are something that happens where they are needed and need no maintenance. I dare any human engineer to come up with something so extraordinary.

Yet, at the moment, we have the New South Wales government following the path of the Victorian government and bringing cattle back into those swamps. As a person who has spent considerable time in those areas marvelling at this wonder, this functioning part of our ecosystem,—not just for the natural environment but for the human beings who live on the springs and watercourses that flow from those sphagnum moss swamps—that you would put cattle back into something that is that fragile and that special is quite beyond my comprehension. Similarly, we have the New South Wales government agreeing now to bring shooters back into our national parks. I joke about it, although it is not funny, that I will be looking for lyrebirds in hi-vis vests in our national parks, but we do actually have a government that is allowing shooters back into our national parks.

I want to return to the bill because I want to talk about the role of the Indigenous traditional owners in the way they care for the land which is their custodial home. We have seen an extraordinary display of this over many years when it comes to Koongarra, something that all of us, as a nation, will benefit from. We will all benefit from the care that they show.

In my electorate of Parramatta we have a number of clans of the Darug nation. Where I live, I am on the traditional lands of the Burramattagal clan of the Darug nation. It was a very small clan, it varied between about 50 and 200 people, and its lands were a really quite small area which extended down the river from a place called The Crescent, which was a natural amphitheatre on the Parramatta River—where surprisingly we have actually built an amphitheatre and a stage—to the mouth of the Duck Creek. It is a tiny little area. We still have some descendants of the Burramattagal clan that live in the area, but very few. As a group they have lost the history of their clan because they have moved so often and they have come and gone. We have a number of people that come from elsewhere, whose relatives lived in the area at various times who have some of the history, but we lost a considerable treasure when we lost tens of thousands of years of history in relation to the land on which we live. We know that there are some very special places on the Parramatta River. We know that the site of the original female convict factory was the sacred women's site, for example. We built the convict factory for women on the sacred women's site, which is interesting. We know that where we build the government house was the sacred men's site. That is perhaps an interesting statement on us. Our knowledge of our land and the way in which it was cared for and the stories about its creation are something that is lost to us. So, when we as a nation see these extraordinary examples of a people standing up and arguing so strongly for their heritage and their history and assisting to protect it for all of us, we should all be profoundly grateful. We have lost so much as a nation, and this is an example of something of incredible value to us all.

Can I commend the minister for the environment Tony Burke. It was a great week last week. We have had some extraordinary achievements as a government. The marine parks is one of those moments I will probably remember in years to come. But this is a very, very special one, because Kakadu is in our hearts as a nation. It is part of who we think we are. It is an image of this continent that we live in which sits in all of our minds, and it is now a little more complete than it was because of the work of these traditional owners. I personally thank them for the years of work and commit to getting up there at some point. It is on my bucket list, in fact it is at the top of my bucket list. Mr Perrett is nodding as well. I think it is on the top of all of our bucket lists. And now it is an even more extraordinary place to visit.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013. I do so on quite an extraordinary day. We have heard two fantastic speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and from Minister Macklin as well. The two speeches from the two leaders show bipartisan support on a day that is significant for Indigenous Australians, the fifth anniversary of the apology.

But it is also the fifth anniversary of my first day in this parliament. I remember we started that day five years ago with an acknowledgement of country, so that is what I am going to do too—acknowledge the traditional owners and thank them for their continuing stewardship. It is strange to think that it has only been for five years that we have been doing that as a parliament. Now it is obviously a part of the fabric of this place and the fabric of the nation.

I agree with the member for Parramatta that Kakadu National Park is a treasure. I do not like the term 'bucket list' but I will use the member for Parramatta's term and indicate that it is a place I would love to visit. I have a nephew who lives up there and has also worked in Kakadu, and he assures me there are places he would love to take me to. I look forward to doing that in the future. The existence of Kakadu National Park is in no small measure due to two significant people in this process: Jeffrey Lee and Bob Hawke. And I am glad that I am here speaking before the member for Banks and with Minister Crean at the table, because I know they would have had a bit to do with that process over the years. Bob Hawke, as Prime Minister, was responsible for Kakadu stages 2 and 3. I think the nation owes him a great debt. Stage 2 was better known in the media at the time as the Coronation Hill decision. I was a bit young at the time and not as closely interested in politics, but it is my understanding that Prime Minister Hawke basically put his leadership on the line. No doubt that had repercussions for him later down the track. But I am glad he had the courage to make that brave call.

We look at Kakadu today, and no-one in the world would question that Bob Hawke was on the right side of history in the call he made. If you go to the rock lookout at Nourlangie, in Kakadu National Park, you will find historically significant rock art for Lightning Man dreaming. This is one of the most popular tourist sites in Kakadu National Park, which also overlooks Koongarra. What you are overlooking is an area that has had the shadow of potential uranium mining over it for the life of Kakadu National Park. I am proud to say that the Gillard Labor government is introducing this legislation into parliament to stop this occurring. We are now completing the million-year journey of Kakadu National Park, taking the final steps in making sure the area of Kakadu is indeed protected forever. This government has completed the Labor legacy that was advanced so far during the years of the Hawke government.

It is well known that Jeffrey Lee was offered in effect millions of dollars for his interests in the area, but made the brave call to care for the land the way his ancestors had for 60,000 years beforehand. Mr Lee is the sole member of the Djok clan and the senior custodian of the Koongarra uranium deposit and has effectively decided never to allow the ecologically sensitive land to be mined.

This decision is significant for Australia and the world. It affirms Kakadu's premier status as a World Heritage site. This, as people who understand the United Nations process would know, means that it is of international significance. I think we should all be very proud as Australians that part of our land is owned by Jeffrey Lee, and we should be especially proud of the decisions he has made.

This Labor government and all Labor governments, one would say—certainly since Bob Hawke and Gough Whitlam—have had a proud history of great environmental achievements. Kakadu is only part of our story. We started as the party of jobs. I am sure that the shearers on strike out at Barcaldine were not talking about environmental issues, apart from how hot it was out at Barcaldine during the strike, sheltering under the gum trees and a bit of old canvas. But since then, particularly since the trade union activities of the 1960s and 1970s, we have also been the party of the environment. In fact some say that the blue-collar trade unions were at the forefront of the environmental movement.

In Queensland, where I come from, we have the Great Barrier Reef and some other significant environmental sites. I would mention Fraser Island for one. During the term of this government we have also made great advances in the Coral Sea. The Coral Sea is internationally recognised for its rich biodiversity and heritage value. The Labor government has recognised the need to protect the Coral Sea with a conservation marine park. This Coral Sea Marine Park initiative is recognised internationally because of its unique physical, ecological and heritage value. We can stand up proudly because of the global leadership we have shown in protecting this endangered biodiversity.

The Gillard government is focused on conserving our environment, its ecological features and its marine regions. The Coral Sea is home to a number of historic shipwrecks, as students of World War II history would know. These are significant to Australian heritage. Obviously they include the region where the Battle of the Coral Sea took place during World War II, where many shipwrecks can still be found among the reefs.

Australia is well known for its vast marine environment, containing many iconic, ecologically important and fragile places that are in need of protection. Environmental policy within Australia seeks to improve how the decisions are made regarding the protection of marine biodiversity and the sustainable use of our ocean resources. In June last year the Centre for Policy Development released an economic evaluation of the proposed Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network. The evaluation reported a number of important aspects that support the Labor ambition to create permanent protection for the Coral Sea, emphasising the government's plans to increase Australia's fully protected marine parks to $2 billion a year in ecosystem services—the services come from coral reefs, seagrasses, coastal shelf and open ocean. The plan will preserve Australia's marine economy, maintaining long-term productivity of the marine estate. It will reduce the damaging forms of fishing, including bottom trawling, and this will deliver long-term benefits for recreational and commercial fishers using more sustainable practices. I particularly commend the commercial fishers for the great work they have done in this process already, despite some of the fear campaigns that are out there. Recent studies in the protected Great Barrier Reef have shown rebuilding of biomass of local fish populations in ways that are likely to produce long-term benefits to fishers.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature identified that 42 per cent of the world's most critically endangered and vulnerable coral species are found in the Coral Sea Conservation Zone. This region is internationally recognised as a significant location for threatened marine species. So, the Australian government's decision to implement a permanent Coral Sea marine park demonstrates global leadership by acting to preserve this important region and reduce the loss of global biodiversity. I note Minister Burke, who is in the chamber, for the great work he has done in this area.

Another environmental achievement I am proud of is the Gillard government's plan to deliver an additional 450 gigalitres of water to the Murray-Darling Basin. This measure recently passed through the parliament. This legislation secures $1.77 billion to relax key operating constraints and to recover the additional water through projects that do not have a social and economic impact on communities. This will be achieved through improvements in irrigation efficiency. We are looking after jobs, but we are also looking after the environment for the future. It will address existing constraints that limit higher water flows, including outflows from storage dams, low-lying infrastructure, and the need to provide for flood easements or agreements with landholders.

The Gillard Labor government is driven to protect our precious environment. We recently opened applications for funding under the second round of the Biodiversity Fund and the first round of Target Area Grants, under the Caring for our Country program. These funding opportunities are a step towards investing in a healthy and more resilient environment by supporting volunteers, farmers and community groups, all together, to make a real difference in their local area.

In my electorate of Moreton, there is a number of fantastic volunteer working groups who work hard to protect local environment. Just to name a few: the activists at Beyond Zero Emissions; the Benarrawa Bushcare Group; the Bulimba Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee; the local conservation volunteers; the Friends of Oxley Creek Common and the Oxley Creek Catchment Association—they do incredible work and have been recognised with awards; the Friends of Stable Swamp Creek; the Gaddes Park Bushcare Group; the Moorooka Greening Group; and the friends of Toohey Forest, who need a bit of a rejig at the moment. I have had dirt under my fingernails with some of these groups and I am proud of the work that they do. It is good for their soul and good for their health as well, but also good for the environment.

There are countless initiatives this government has taken towards environmental protection, including banning supertrawlers—and I see Minister Burke made some comments about that yesterday, with some additional safeguards—adding Tarkine to the National Heritage List, the recruitment of specialised local staff to restore the Murray-Darling Basin, investing to help improve urban waterways, the Western Australian marine parks program, and the internationally recognised price on carbon. We are a world leader in this area.

In Kakadu, we have one of the most precious places on earth. The governments of the world have recognised that, so this bill helps us to complete Kakadu National Park. It allows this Labor government to conclude the legacy of the Hawke Labor government and allows Australia to proudly respect the wishes of the traditional owners and say that the wishes that they have had for their land will be respected for ever and Kakadu National Park will be complete. I commend the bill to the House.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013 repeals the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981 so as to exclude the prospect of future mining activity in the Koongarra area. The bill is in line with the express views of the traditional owner, Jeffrey Lee. The explanatory memorandum, in a short outline, says is as follows:

The Koongarra area is surrounded by the Kakadu National Park and was excluded from the boundaries of the Kakadu National Park when it was proclaimed in 1979. This exclusion was made to accommodate the prospect of future mining activity. Since that time, a number of parties have pursued the development of mining at Koongarra but no mining tenements have been granted.

The Australian government committed at the 2010 federal election to protect Koongarra as part of Kakadu in line with the express views of the traditional owner. The Completion ofKakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013 is part of a process which will see Koongarra incorporated into Kakadu National Park.

This has been a long struggle that is nearing completion. Today we heard some speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, and I can place on record that I thought both of those speeches were fine speeches. The sentiments were fine sentiments. What we need to do in this place is more than fine speeches. We need to progress on issues like this, especially issues that have been outstanding a long time, into the reality of respecting the views of traditional owners, by delivering on projects that, like this, should have been incorporated into Kakadu National Park a long time ago. That is what we will be judged on—not on our words, but on our deeds. As has been said in the debate to date, the TO, Jeffrey Lee, has to be congratulated, because he was not tempted by the money—he was more interested in preserving the land the way it had been handed to him by his father and grandfather for future generations. History shows that he made the right choice. That is not to deny other traditional owners in other parts of Australia will seek to deal with mining companies and pastoralists and others. That is their right to do so—their fully-informed consent to do so—and they should not be dictated to by green groups or anyone else, as occasionally happens in the process.

I have been in this place a very long time and I have been through the various number of issues to do with Indigenous Australians, through the Hawke government, the Keating government, the period of the Howard government, the apology to the stolen generations and now what is being worked through by the current government. In relation to this instance, it took the courage of the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, in relation to Coronation Hill, to stand up his cabinet—and there is no doubt he stood them up. There is no doubt that he did not have the numbers in his cabinet, and we had that replayed on television where a number of cabinet ministers spoke out. But who looks good with hindsight? Prime Minister Bob Hawke has been vindicated. That is what leadership is about, and in relation to the Indigenous area, the reality is it requires a prime minister to stand side by side with Indigenous Australians for progress to be made. That is not to say that there are not others who contribute to the process, but that was a classic example.

When Prime Minister Keating made his speech at Redfern, that was a pretty historic occasion. He stood his cabinet up over native title and he has been vindicated in relation to that, because the truth is that there was a lot of concern at that time in relation to the politics, as there always is with Aboriginal people. We are now entering a phase with John Howard gone from the public stage, and he is the one I blame. From the day he came into public life till the day he left, in relation to this area he had a blind spot. He is the one who is diminished.

Mr Baldwin interjecting—

That is why the words of the current Leader of the Opposition today, in virtually acknowledging the strength of the apology made by Prime Minister Rudd, sheets that home. I think he had a blind spot. On other areas in relation to the former Prime Minister it is well known that we have a good relationship, but let us call a spade a spade.

The good thing about the current climate is that the current Prime Minister, the current government and, generally, the current Leader of the Opposition are not playing politics on Indigenous affairs, nor should they. In other areas, we are having a fight. They will deal with themselves. We now have different climate.

The member opposite, Mr Baldwin, interjected a moment ago. The reason I get riled up is I remember the 7.30 Reportoccasion where the former Prime Minister lifted up a brown stained map and told 78 per cent of Australians that their backyards were under threat from native title. Well, they were not. Now we are getting land use agreements from conservative governments, such as the government of Western Australia, by consent. We are all better for it and mining companies are able to work with Indigenous people. Areas such as this that is before us today, from day one, have been a no-go zone for mining. It is interesting that the 1977 Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry report recommended that certain areas of land be declared as Kakadu National Park, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The boundaries of this land included the Koongarra uranium deposit. The inquiry opposed mining the deposit. In announcing its August 1977 decision on uranium mining in the region, the Fraser government decided that the Koongarra special mining lease application area would be excluded from Kakadu National Park.

I will say one thing about Malcolm Fraser. He introduced a watered-down Land Rights Act in 1976 compared to what Gough Whitlam introduced, but it retained the right of veto. He is credited with introducing the toughest land rights protection in the country, under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act. It has made a lot of the protection possible in the Northern Territory and it should not be touched by any government—this government or future governments—in terms of the right of veto. The way to proceed is by respecting our traditional owners. Many of the traditional owners are quite happy to do business, as the minister at the table, Minister Crean, knows. In remote and regional areas of Australia, they are happy to have their land developed in return for jobs for their communities, for health and other benefits. So it is not just a blanket 'no' that you get from the traditional owners or Indigenous people around Australia. They are entitled to a place at the table.

That is why one has to respect the current traditional owner Jeffrey Lee and the way he took his position. From day one, it has not changed, and he has been vindicated. It was good to see him here with Bob Hawke, when Minister Burke gave the second reading speech. It was symbolic to have those two people on the floor of the chamber during the second reading speech, and they were properly acknowledged by the minister. It was more than symbolic. It sent a message to the rest of the community about respecting Aboriginal people, acknowledging that their history is important, their stories are important and their land is important to them. We are seeing—and the environment minister at the table knows this—that at the moment there is debate going on about mining tenements in urban areas. Those people's attachment to the land does not go back 40,000 years, but they feel pretty strong about it and want to be consulted in the process.

Today is a very happy day, because it is not something that comes before the House with division and politicising. We can feel good about this, because you can become enlightened as you gain experience and interact. I know that when I was shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs for 4½ years, from 1996 to 2000, I was on a very steep learning curve on Indigenous history and a whole series of things that I did not have a clue about. Where I grew up, we knew no Aboriginal people—in Panania, in Bankstown. There was a person here and there of a dark-skinned nature but we never really sat down and talked to them. That is why I became passionate in this area. When I came into parliament, and certainly when I became the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, I gave people in my own party a lot of grief, and a lot were glad to see the back of me in relation to my portfolio.

I feel vindicated. I seconded an apology that Kim Beazley moved and it was rejected by the parliament because the time was not right. Some of the most happy times I have had in this place have had to do with Aboriginal people. I was the only federal or state member of parliament in the High Court when Justice Gummow delivered his decision on Wik. That was supposed to bring about the end of the world as we know it. Now we know it did not. It was just a statement of fact: pastoralists have lived side by side with Aboriginal people for years.

The minister at the table, Minister Crean, has been in the cabinet and heard the debates. People are well intentioned. The problem is that there was—and still is—a lot of ignorance out there, and it is our job to educate people, to have an informed debate and discussion on these things. I have a few problems with the Leader of the Opposition on a whole range of things, but not in relation to this area. I think he is genuine, because he has a level of experience. He sat in the sand with Aboriginal people in remote Australia, and I believe, in this instance, he is genuine. I am happy to say that—no holds barred, no qualification. I thought he gave a great speech today, as did the Prime Minister.

This is an area where we are moving forward, but we cannot rest on our laurels. That is why this bill is a great one. It is delivering on something that predates the time I came into parliament and predates the time that Minister Crean came into parliament. There is only one member of parliament I know of, the former minister for immigration Philip Ruddock, who was in the parliament way back in 1979. He came into parliament in 1973, in the Fraser years. That is how long it has taken.

I am hoping that in a lot of other areas we can accelerate things. The problem has been recognition and respect.

There has been a lack of respect in relation to Indigenous people through ignorance. I actually think that Aboriginal people are being quite respectful towards the non-Indigenous community and to us—more than we really appreciate. If I had had done to me what has been done to Indigenous people over the times, there would be a lot more anger in me than there is now. It would be exponentially higher.

Acts like this that are able to be done by the minister at the table, Minister Burke—and he rightly acknowledges that Minister Garrett in the previous parliament commenced the process—are very important, not just symbolically but in showing substantial progress. I know that for many years Indigenous people were of the view that all they got was words. Another whitefella would come along, a series of words would be given, they would move on and they would never see them again. This bill is owned by a number of people at every level. It has been a partnership, it has been a resistance—and it is no longer a resistance movement, it is mainstream. Most people would be shocked and horrified to think that you would engage now in uranium mining in this area, in such a beautiful, pristine wilderness.

I am delighted to be able to speak to this bill and I hope that we can go forward in a number of other areas where we need to go forward. Aboriginal people deserve this, they deserve this respect, because we are enriched by them as a nation, and the rest of the world are watching. They have been watching for a long while, and the apology went a long way to overcoming a lot of the damage that had been done in the previous decade. This will go a long way, within the United Nations and other bodies, to show that we are fair dinkum and that we are progressing.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate on the Completion of Kakadu National Park (Koongarra Project Area Repeal) Bill 2013. Unfortunately one of the realities is that the fact that we have all agreed means that most people will not know what we have done, but the decisions that the parliament is about to make now are some of the most significant environmental decisions this parliament will ever be part of. Kakadu is world class, it is World Heritage and it is one of the most extraordinary places on our planet. This bill completes Kakadu National Park by taking away any future option for uranium mining.

I am particular pleased that the final speaker in the debate was the member for Banks. He is gone now, so now that he is not here I will say something nice about him. The member for Banks is a perfect example of what has brought us to today. As a shadow minister, he gave up his frontbench career because of the importance of respecting the dignity of self-determination for Indigenous Australians. It is a story known well by people who were around at the time. I only know it because I was from a similar local area to the member for Banks, but what he did, at the level he was at at that point in time, was no different to what Bob Hawke did when he stood up his own cabinet, and no different to what Jeffrey Lee has done when he turned down being a multi-multimillionaire in order to protect his land. The reason we are here today is that a series of people, over decades, have been willing to make great personal sacrifice because they believed that here is a piece of our country that needs to be preserved forever.

The thing that I am particular pleased with, in the process that has led us here today, is that Jeffrey Lee could have made the opposite decision had he wanted to. The ball was firmly in his court as the last traditional owner of the Djok clan. When told by the company, as he says, that they were 'willing to make him the wealthiest person in Australia', he responded with the words, 'No, I have a job to do.' The job that Jeffrey Lee wants to do is to make sure that the lifelong work of his ancestors is continued long after he has passed.

As a result of this resolution—and how good that we are concluding the debate on the same day that we heard the extraordinary speeches we heard from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—what we do now is that we respect as a parliament. The Parliament of Australia says to the traditional owner Jeffrey Lee, 'It was your call; you've said you want this land protected forever; therefore it will be.' I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.