Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I share Senator Thorpe's concerns around what is actually happening, or, more to the point, what is not happening here. We were promised at the last election by this government that they would have this comprehensive First Nations cultural heritage plan, that they'd get cracking on this—that they'd actually do the work that needed to be needed to be done to give effect to this plan.

Here we are nearly two years on—I think we're just one week short of two years since the last election—and they've done nothing. Diddly squat. We have a government here trying to explain away the lack of action. We've got to remember the backdrop against which this substandard response has been given. It's a backdrop of nil activity in the environment portfolio. We were also promised, at that same point in time, that we would have a full and comprehensive response to the Samuel review of our national environmental approval laws—that by the end of 2023 we'd have laws in this parliament. We still don't. Another six months have passed—no laws. It sounds like we won't be having those laws in parliament this term either. A broken promise—but, hey, let's not worry about it.

I do want to go to some of the comments that were made by Minister Plibersek in relation to the importance of getting these First Nations cultural heritage laws in place, and of course the promises that were made about acting on the need for policy reform. They said:

An Albanese Labor government will work with the First Nations Heritage Alliance and other stakeholders to reform our national heritage protection framework and prevent such destruction occurring in the future—

referring to the Juukan Gorge disaster—

This includes through new stand-alone First Nations heritage protection legislation.

This was part of their First Nations Peoples Plan. Referring to that, and in relation to introducing standalone federal Indigenous cultural heritage protection legislation, Minister Plibersek said this: 'There's never been a better moment to take this step.' That was on 24 November 2022—quite some time ago now. 'Never been a better moment' than 24 November 2022. We're now in 2024, and the moment has well and truly passed. The Nature Positive Plan document which was tabled a couple of weeks later, in December 2022, states:

A National Environmental Standard for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making will be developed as a priority.

It's such a priority that nearly two years can pass and we have nothing. Senator Thorpe is rightly angered by this, and I support her in that. It goes on:

This will ensure that First Nations interests and cultural heritage are identified early and can be protected as projects are designed.

I emphasise the word 'early'. That's not happening. It says, 'These will ensure that cultural heritage is identified and protected early,' providing certainty to traditional owners. Well, there is no certainty because there are no standards. No work has been done.

In estimates in October last year I was wondering what was going on, giving the government the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were getting some work done. I asked a senior official from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water where things were at. I said, 'Is there a chance that what we are talking about here, the standards that were so critically important to have out the door and in place, will be done before the next election?' The official, a deputy secretary in the department, said, 'It's unclear.' Not even those who are notionally doing this work on this critically important piece of policy could tell us when work would be done. It won't be done before the election, in much the same way that the national environmental laws won't before the election.

I go to this ridiculous claim of public interest immunity, the suggestion in the letter that has been provided by the minister that this would pre-empt cabinet deliberations—that the documents relating to this order, the order that Senator Thorpe sought, would both disclose and pre-empt deliberations of cabinet. If those who make these claims would read Odgers', they would understand that this claim does not stack up, which is why we reject it. To claim loosely that cabinet documents are immune from production in the courts or at least orders by this place is not supported. Only documents which record or reveal the deliberations of cabinet are immune. The documents we're talking about here don't fit into that category. That's supported by case law, the case of the Commonwealth and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The government hasn't got a leg to stand on here. They haven't done any work. It's an embarrassment. I applaud Senator Thorpe for moving this motion.