Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I was originally intending to speak in the second reading debate on the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 but was unavailable at the appropriate moment. In some ways, I want to make more of a summary comment, which probably suits the third reading of this bill. I want to make clear on an individual level that I oppose this legislation. It was the Democrats clear-cut election commitment, prior to the last election, that we oppose radioactive waste facilities such as this legislation seeks to enable. It is worth reminding the Senate that it was also a clear-cut commitment of the federal coalition not to build this facility in the Territory. Nonetheless, the parliament has passed legislation already in an effort to enable it to happen. This legislation will also pass, I assume, to further facilitate that.

I wanted to make the broader comment that, whilst I am opposed personally to this legislation, I think there are some problematic aspects to some of the comments made by those opposed to it. The Democrats have always had a very strong commitment to the principle of self-determination for Indigenous people. Frankly, it is a principle that has not been given a decent trial at any level of government or by governments of any type, colour or persuasion in Australia, and I really think it is time governments did.

A key part of self-determination is that you cannot apply it selectively. You cannot say it is okay for self-determination when Indigenous people do something you agree with and then, if they decide to do something with their land that you do not agree with, to ignore that principle. Anything that anybody, Indigenous or otherwise, wants to do on their land must be in accordance with the law; I do not suggest otherwise. But it is important that the principle of self-determination is supported, and it is probably more important that it is supported when it is inconvenient than when it is convenient. To that extent, I agree with at least that part of the comments that Senator Scullion made.

I know there are differences of opinion amongst Aboriginal people in the Territory. There is obviously a very clear difference of opinion between the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council boards. I am sure there are differences of opinion amongst traditional owners at the grassroots level as well. Those disputes are for those people to sort out themselves, frankly. If there are traditional owners of lands in the Northern Land Council area that are potential dump sites, and they are unhappy with what the Northern Land Council does, then that is a matter that I am sure they would need to and would take up with the officials of the Northern Land Council, many of whom are of course traditional owners themselves. The board members are obviously traditional owners, but they are traditional owners of different country. If there are disagreements then I do not seek to take sides in those disagreements. I know the Northern Land Council has a reasonably good record of consulting. That does not mean that everybody will support decisions that are made.

There are risks with this legislation. I think any legislation that, in effect, removes the right to ensure procedural fairness is a problem. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. I think it is important to put on record my belief—and it has, as I said, been a longstanding Democrat principle—that self-determination is one of the most fundamental principles we should seek to apply in political affairs in Australia. It is something that you cannot apply selectively, which is a habit of all sides of politics. I am certainly not applying that to just those who oppose this facility; it is something that all sides of politics do. All sides are quite happy, as the government has done on this occasion, to point to a group of Indigenous people and say, ‘They support this and we should support them in their right to do whatever they want on their land.’ It is a good principle. I would like to see the government apply it consistently.

In question time today, we heard that Senator Kemp, the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, seemingly has no concern about the fact that the federal minister has blocked a proposal by the council that oversees the city of Wadeye to lease some of their land. The government wants them to lease land only when it is on terms that the government likes—not on terms that the Aboriginal council wants. We had the extraordinary circumstance of Senator Kemp thinking that it is somehow, to use his words, ‘curious’ and ‘very strange’ for me to want to take the advice of Indigenous communities. It is a pretty sad day when you have the official representative in the Senate of the minister for Indigenous affairs thinking that it is somehow strange to want to seek the advice of Indigenous communities. I would like to think that that is done as a matter of course, although I know that it is not.

I note reports today on consultations that were happening in Alice Springs about potential sites for proposed temporary accommodation for visitors from Aboriginal communities coming to Alice Springs. Those consultations were aimed at making people informed about the proposal and seeking their views. But, at the same time, according to this report—I am assuming it is accurate—the representative of the federal minister said:

The risk is the Australian government will say, ‘If we are just going to get ourselves bogged down in some tacky argument then quite frankly there are a lot of other communities that have similar problems to Alice Springs and maybe we should invest there.’ We have to be very careful about making sure the federal government is backed.

I am assuming that quote is accurate. It is in quotation marks. If it is accurate then that is another indication of the selective application of this principle from the federal government’s side of things. When they want to do something then the views of Indigenous people are not taken into account unless they happen to match what the federal government already wants to do. If they do not then their concerns are basically ignored. So it is a problem across the board. It is a concern I have in regard to arguments made by people across the political spectrum: that they pull out the principle of self-determination when it suits the action that they support but will ignore it when it does not.

I really think we need to recognise that self-determination is more important than that. As long as it is legal for something to be done on a particular piece of land, then if the Aboriginal people wish, in an informed way, to allow that activity to take place on that land we have to accept that they have the ability to make the choice about that.

Of course, the other issue that has to be raised in that context is the need to provide more genuine choices and opportunities for Indigenous people and Indigenous communities, not just in the Territory but around Australia, because in many cases it is the lack of other opportunities and the lack of viable alternatives that can unnecessarily pressure Indigenous communities or particular groups to go down a path that they would not otherwise take, or to agree to a course of action that they would prefer not to agree to if there were other alternatives. So a key part of self-determination and any sort of informed consent involves a genuine commitment to providing a range of alternatives and genuine opportunities to Indigenous people, including young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around the country.

I do not want to stray too wide and too far from the single purpose of the legislation but I think those broader points need to be made. We need to be consistent in regard to the principle of self-determination. I would like to see the government apply it much more consistently. I am quite happy to try and ensure that people on my side of the political spectrum also apply it more consistently than we sometimes do.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.