Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Duniam, move:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2025:

(a) the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at the federal, state and territory levels in blocking development and locking up our country on the basis of race, with particular reference to:

(i) the declaration by the federal Minister for the Environment and Water regarding the tailings dam of the McPhillamys Gold Project under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984,

(ii) the declaration by the Victorian Government through Parks Victoria with respect to rock climbing on Mount Arapiles in the Wimmera region and in the Grampians National Park,

(iii) the closure of Mount Warning by the New South Wales Government,

(iv) the proposed closure of Kate Thanda-Lake Eyre by the South Australian Government, and

(v) any other similar declarations;

(b) the effect of any proposed, potential or existing Treaty agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws; and

(c) any other related matters.

We are moving this motion for the Senate to refer various matters to the Environment and Communications References Committee for an inquiry and report. Those matters include the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at both state and federal level in blocking development and access to land on the basis of race. It also includes an examination of the effect of proposed, potential or existing treaty negotiations and agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws.

There are many reasons why this inquiry is needed. One of those reasons is due to the increasing evidence that our current legislative scheme allows cultural heritage laws to be used to block critical infrastructure and development projects. One of the most stark examples of this, of course, is the Blayney goldmine decision. In August this year, Minister Plibersek made a decision under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. The declaration had the effect, which she well knew, of stopping the development of the proposed McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales.

It was a terrible decision on many fronts. It, of course, made a mockery of state-level planning processes, given that the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission had already approved the project to go ahead. It was based on bad evidence. Despite the Albanese government's resistance to release the material, we finally know that the minister did and, perhaps more importantly, did not consider it before making the declaration. We know that the key opponent weaponised by the EDO to oppose the project used to be on the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and did not identify as Aboriginal at that time. There was also much disagreement about her recognition and acceptance by Wiradjuri people themselves as a member of their community. Her evidence included her own paintings, which allegedly depicted the area in question as well as a supposed blue-banded bee dreaming. We also know that Minister Plibersek did not seek the advice of independent cultural heritage experts to verify the legitimacy of this dreaming story—surprise, surprise! Further, this dreaming story was denied as legitimate by the Wiradjuri present at a meeting of New South Wales land council representatives last month.

While I'm speaking of the land councils, the decision was also bad in that it disregarded the opinions of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who has authority to speak on matters of cultural heritage. The decision also undermines certainty for investors at home and abroad who would otherwise be willing to invest heavily in these major projects. It diminishes our attractiveness as a region to be invested in. Why would anyone want to pour millions of dollars into a project that could easily be stymied at the last moment? Investors cannot have confidence that they won't be left out in the cold at the last minute even when they have complied with every permit or planning process.

The decision was bad in that it fuels activism—case in point being the newly created specialist legal department of the Environmental Defenders Office. This team is meant to assist Indigenous Australians who want to make cultural heritage claims. But let's not forget, when justifying her decision, Minister Plibersek said that if we want to protect cultural heritage, then occasionally we have to make decisions like this. I can tell you that the establishment of this new legal team within the EDO proves that they have no intention of keeping these occurrences occasional as the minister suggested. Why else would the EDO devote a specialist team to assist people making these kinds of claims unless their aim was to exponentially increase these kinds of claims being made? The EDO are in rabid pursuit of shutting down development, and decisions like this only add fuel to their destructive, antidevelopment fire.

The Blayney goldmine clearly demonstrates the inadequate nature of our current cultural heritage laws. Despite all of the criticisms listed above, the legislative framework is set up to allow the minister to make decisions like this. That's why we need an inquiry into the operation of those laws, including their particular operation in the case of the Blayney goldmine.

Aside from stopping development, this motion also seeks to inquire into the operation of cultural heritage laws on decisions that are locking up land away from the public. The most recent example of this comes from Victoria. The Victorian government, via Parks Victoria, is proposing to prohibit rock climbing in the area of Mount Arapiles. Some estimate that up to half of all the climbing routes on Mount Arapiles will be closed. In 2020 there was an interim protection order made, which denied access to an area of Mount Arapiles. The order was made under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act and was the first of its kind. The order was allegedly put in place to protect, among other things, culturally significant rock art motifs. Most of these rock art motifs cannot be seen with the naked eye. Instead special equipment is required to even observe this remnant of cultural significance.

Perhaps more concerning in this case was the consultation—or lack thereof. The Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network was established in light of the bans, and their 54-page report was relied on by Parks Victoria. This report was allegedly from a rock climbing perspective but the report has not been released, so we don't know what it actually says. The cultural heritage assessments have not been released either. Why the secrecy?

Further, the Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network have themselves confirmed that they did not help climbers and, further, that they did not act on behalf of the climbing community or claim to act in consultation with the climbing community. They have been unapologetic about the fact that they have a relationship with traditional owners, not rock climbers. They admitted that their sole role was to help the Barengi Gadjin Land Council in their understanding of climbing at Mount Arapiles. And, yes, this is the organisation Parks Victoria relied on to prove that there was a balanced consultation process—surprise surprise! The Victorian government has failed to appropriately consider rock climbers or the economic impacts of these closures.

Let's be clear. Rock climbers usually—and in this case specifically—care deeply about the environment and about protecting what they have around them. Why wouldn't they? Rock climbing in this region generates a significant amount of money. There are small communities like Natimuk that will feel the impact deeply. Places like the local Pines campground would also likely have to be closed as a result of climbing bans. A spokesperson for Climbing Victoria estimated that about 90 per cent of the visitors to Mount Arapiles were in fact rock climbers. Mount Arapiles is a world-known rock climbing location and its status as a destination to visit is quickly diminishing because of these bans. These are the kinds of places we should be showcasing to the world instead of restricting them so much that the surrounding communities end up shutting down.

We've also seen the closure of the summit track at Wollumbin National Park. It was initially closed in 2020 due to COVID. However, the closure was extended by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service not only due to safety concerns but also due to the cultural significance of the mountain to the Bundjalung nation. Before it was closed it attracted over 100,000 visitors per year. The ongoing closure is estimated to have cost $50 million to the region. In 2022 the management of the site was given to the Wollumbin consultative group, which is made up of various Aboriginal groups, but the claims of cultural heritage made by the WCG have been disputed by some Indigenous people, such as Sturt Boyd, the son of the last keeper of Mount Warning, Marlene Boyd.

There are allegations of some claims being nothing more than a modern-day invention, not dissimilar to what we have seen regarding the claims of the dreaming at the Blayney goldmine site. As well as issues of cultural invention, we again have issues of accountability and transparency in the case of Mount Warning. People like Mr Boyd, who has long-standing ties to the mountain and is a Ngarakwal elder, has not been allowed to participate in the consultation process or know who is attending these WCG meetings. We must ensure our consultation processes are robust, accountable and transparent.

Finally, this motion also seeks to investigate the impact of treaties which are progressing or may be developed in states and territories on cultural heritage laws. Aside from treaties being at odds with the wishes of the Australian people, they also introduce a lot of unknowns. We don't know what impact treaties will have on these cultural heritage laws and vice versa. Ultimately, these treaties should not be progressing, but, given they are, at the very least, we need an inquiry to understand their ramifications. Minister Plibersek herself said that it is possible to both protect cultural heritage and have development. It is ironic because, despite her acknowledging this, she is not actually doing it. She is placing too much weight on cultural heritage claims when they are paper thin in their legitimacy and evidence. We need a legislative framework in this country that truly promotes balance.

Of course, if we really want reconciliation, we need a framework that appropriately addresses cultural heritage while also encouraging development and sharing our incredible places and spaces with each other and those who visit from abroad. I've always said—my elders have taught me—that, if you are born in this country, you belong to it. You too share the dreaming spirit of the creator ancestor of this land, and that should be shared amongst all Australians. That makes us all custodians of this land. That is what true reconciliation means in this country.

But it is not ideal to the Left. It's certainly not an ideal concept to the Greens and Labor, this government who would not like to see Indigenous Australians have any kind of economic development opportunities or economic independence but would rather that they remain in their stagnant positions, dependent on welfare. But what better way is there for people to get to know this lucky country than to actually let them come and see and access it for themselves? If we do not take a commonsense approach to these matters, we will end up locking up anything and everything instead of benefiting all Australians.

So, yes, Minister Plibersek, we can have both. We can have a lot, in fact. We can protect cultural heritage and the environment. We can promote development and investment. We can enjoy, celebrate and share everything our wonderful country has to offer instead of creating classes of people in this country that can block off land and access to something that should belong to all of the Australian public. But, in order to have this, we need to revisit our frameworks, especially our cultural heritage laws. That is why, of course, my colleague Senator Duniam and I are moving this motion today.

In the spirit of this country, with the separatism that's been pushed onto us by this government and their coalition partners in the Greens, we need to step away from separatism. We need to treat all Australians equally for the benefit of us all. For the benefit of our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we need to end the separatism, we need to stop antidevelopment, we need to stop locking up land and we need to celebrate who we are as a country together.