Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

It has been alleged that coffee was involved. Those of us who are a little bit cynical have accepted that there are special arrangements concerning the Wild Rivers legislation. But why would you have special arrangements? We already have arrangements in place that work: empowerment; working next to Aboriginal people who know how to look after the land because they looked after the land well before white people stood on this land. The only reason could be that they have simply done a deal.

We know about the Wilderness Society and those associated with it—they have produced some very good outcomes and are trying to protect the environment—but I think that we have lost touch with the balance. The balance for Premier Bligh was to say to the Greens: 'I need your pref­erences. What would you like in exchange?' Clearly, the exchange from Premier Bligh was, 'We'll go and have Wild Rivers.' The question would then have been, 'What is Wild Rivers going to do?' and Premier Bligh's answer would have been, 'It takes a little time to deliver national park-like mechanisms because we have to have the consent of people; we have to have people agree.' The response to that would have been, 'No, we can't have that in it.' So the legis­lation was passed with a lot of opposition—though not, obviously, with sufficient opp­osition—but without the inclusion of the notion of consent. The people of Cape York have not held this land for very long as a national park—in that sense it is still young land—yet this Wild Rivers legislation, only because of some grubby Greens preference, has a substantially different approach to how we go about a partnership approach for conservation to the approach found in other conservation legislation. It is still not too late, Premier Bligh; it is still up to you. You can change your own legislation to make it consistent with your approach to national parks. You can still do this. All the people I have spoken to across the cape wish to embrace the opportunities for conservation. They want to do that. We have got examples all over the place of that. But there should be that simple respect of saying that we will require the consent of Aboriginal people. That is exactly what the Wild Rivers (Envir­onmental Management) Bill 2011 would ensure. It is simply to ensure that Aboriginal people are fully involved, that we can get the full benefits of the wisdom of the Aborig­inals and that we get their consent—which is just about respect.

Those in the gallery and those in the chamber will recall that the President this morning rose and said that we would also like to acknowledge the Ngunawal and Nga­mberri people of the Canberra area. That is all about respecting the ownership of land. Sadly, in my view, the Queensland govern­ment, or elements of the Queensland govern­ment, have certainly been disrespectful in the way that they are treating Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of land and are owners of land in Queensland, in this matter.

That is the motive behind this bill. It is a very simple motive. Clearly, as I have indicated, I do not have the support today, because there are still some concerns with the bill. We will be speaking to a number of people to ensure that we have the amend­ments correctly, because this is such an important area of consideration. I under­stand, Senator Furner, that you had a great interest in this. Look into your heart to see whether there are other appropriate amend­ments or whether you can ring the premier yourself. If you want to do some real good for the people of Cape York—and I know you do, mate—you need to reach into your heart and do the business of ensuring that the Queensland government does the right thing.