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

I move Democrat amendment (4) on sheet 5341:

(4)    Schedule 4, item 12, page 52 (after line 31), after paragraph 70F(20)(b), insert:

      (ba)    land covering areas of cultural significance, ceremony or storage of sacred objects;

This concerns an issue that I do not think we have talked about until now. It is a small but still important amendment. It deals with the issue of the definition of ‘common areas’ under the new part 70F of the act. Under the new regime put in place in this legislation, a person may enter or remain on a common area that is within community land. The definition of ‘common area’ as put in the legislation is:

an area that is generally used by members of the community concerned, but does not include:

          (a)           a building; or

          (b)           a sacred site; or

          (c)           an area prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

The intent of that, I assume, is for the government to make clear that opening up the permit system to some extent does not mean that people can go into buildings, as Senator Scullion said, or on to sacred sites.

The Democrat amendment would add an additional criterion to also include land covering areas of cultural significance, ceremony or storage of sacred objects. From my recollection, that is based on suggestions made to the Senate committee through some of the submissions that the exclusions of areas from the definition of ‘common area’ really need to be a little broader and should go beyond just a sacred site to also include the words that I stated. Areas of cultural significance, ceremony or storage of sacred objects would not come under the formal definition of ‘sacred site’.

The legislation says that the minister will have the power to add other areas by regulation for the purposes of the paragraph. So it may be that the government will indicate the minister’s preparedness to look at including a definition like that as one that would be prescribed by regulation, and that would have the same effect. If we can get that commitment, that would be a positive thing. It would be better if it was put into law, which is why I am moving it as an amendment. But, if we can have some indication that putting it in the regulations may be considered, that would at least go some way to addressing the concerns of those who raised this as an issue.