Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

The Victorian government sought the return of this regime, and it has taken you how long to get there? How long does it take you to do these basic tasks? You do not know what you are doing. You see political advantage in playing with these questions of Indigenous affairs. You believe there are votes in winding up opposition in the community and playing base political games with the fundamental questions about the cultural heritage of this country—heritage that belongs to all of us and should not be appropriated for the political interests of the government of the day.

The legislation seeks to do some basic things about providing greater certainty for international cultural loan arrangements, which clearly we all support. It also seeks to transfer back to Victoria responsibility for the heritage administration for that state, which, given the request from the Victorian government, of course the opposition supports. But, equally, a review was undertaken 10 years ago and no action followed from this government, to the point now where the government has acted by putting forward a bill without proper consultation with Indigenous communities and without a proper process of involving people. It has organised it behind closed doors, seeking to extract maximum political advantage for its own direct, narrow interests.

We have recommendations from the Senate committee which highlight the gross inadequacy of this bill and the failure of the government to fulfil its previous commitments to have consultation and to address all the recommendations of the Evatt report. What have you got? You have a situation where there is a partial examination of those recommendations, but a situation that will allow the sorry record of this government to be continued. There are opportunities here for the government to seek to continue to take political advantage of Indigenous people at the political whim of Senator Campbell to pursue his incompetent management of the National Heritage List. We heard time and time again what actions he was going to take. He is one of the greatest ‘gonna’ ministers that we have in the Commonwealth. He is always ‘gonna’ do something. If it is not parrots it is some other device, like mountain cattlemen, that he wishes to pursue for what he sees as his narrow political objectives. Is it any wonder that everyone now is awake to him?

What we see here are the basic questions. For instance, think about Wave Hill. It is 31 years since the historic events at Wave Hill. It was the first example of the way the land rights movement developed in this country. It has been 31 years, and the minister says he will do lots of things but nothing happens. Think about the tent embassy site. No matter what you think about the specifics of the tent embassy, no-one can dispute its historic significance. I think I said 31 years; it is probably closer to 40 years now since the Wave Hill walk-off. And what is the government doing? Nothing; a lot of talk. But it will not act. You can think about 16 other sites on the World Heritage List where a similar pattern emerges. The government says it will do certain things, but nothing actually happens.

We are being asked to consider the government’s attitude in a context where it is in fact returning the heritage administration to the government of Victoria. I know the minister, Mr Gavin Jennings. I have discussed this matter with him. In fact, I know how long ago the request was put in and how long it takes for this government to respond to these matters. I know the capabilities of that minister, and I know the attitudes of the Victorian government. Given those circumstances, I find it extraordinary that the Greens would seek to have a review in two years time of the operations of that new regime. I think it creates a historic anomaly. The Victorian government wants the matter fixed; it deserves an opportunity to have it fixed, and in my view the amendment is unnecessary. It is apparent to me that there is some confusion within the Greens, having regard to the arguments that I have seen relating to the amendment to review it in two years time. Given how long it has taken to get to this stage, I think that is inappropriate.

It strikes me that there are many other substantive matters that were canvassed in the Evatt inquiry and that it would be timely for the Commonwealth to look again at having a comprehensive national review of the administration of Indigenous heritage protection, but it would not be appropriate to examine just one state. If we are going to look at the operation of the national Indigenous heritage program then it should occur right across the country. We should get a truly national picture, not the inappropriate, partial review which is suggested by this proposed amendment.

I come back to the fundamental problem, and that is the gross inadequacy of this government when it comes to the question of national heritage, the appalling record of this minister and his blatant and repeated efforts to intervene in a politically partisan way to seek short-term partisan advantage at the expense of the national estate. He is doing this country a huge disservice. I might even suggest he is probably doing his own government a disservice —not that he would take advice from me on that score. Frankly, it is an extraordinary situation where the authority, the credibility and the integrity of the administration of national heritage in this country are put into such disrepute by such an incompetent, partisan and gullible minister.