Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One would have thought that this bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 [2006], could have been sorted out pretty quickly, but what we have found is a protracted process of review going back to Justice Elizabeth Evatt’s report of 1996. That report sought to examine the appropriateness of the current regimes with regard to Indigenous heritage matters and it made a series of recommendations. The government has received the report but has failed to act on it.

The government has produced a piece of legislation which is, at best, extremely disappointing and which only partially implements the recommendations of the Evatt report. This legislation was spoken of in terms of urgency three years ago. It was introduced to this chamber last October and now, in August 2006, we see the final vote being taken. So you could hardly say that the government has rushed to implement this proposition or that this is a matter that has been at the forefront of the government’s interests. It reflects the appalling attitude this government has to Indigenous heritage questions.

One saving grace is that the bill seeks to strengthen our commitments in terms of international borrowings of Indigenous heritage artefacts. I might say, though, that the government has been pretty slow on the uptake in terms of the return of artefacts from cultural institutions around the world. It is appropriate, though, that there be a strengthening of the legal regime with regard to borrowings from this time on.

A second saving grace is that the bill returns to Victoria the responsibility to administer its own Aboriginal heritage protection regime. If I remember correctly, back in the 1980s, in the Lake Condah and Framlingham affairs, the upper house of the Victorian parliament—which of course was dominated by some of the most slimy shellbacks that we had been able to produce for many a generation—sought to protect particular landholders in those regions with a bid to block the legitimate aspirations of Indigenous people to protect extraordinarily important heritage sites. We had the situation where one of the rare examples of Indigenous people building stone dwellings and providing extensive farming and aquacultural facilities was not being protected because it suited some of the local identities not to give Indigenous people the respect and dignity they deserved by protecting those sites.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have sought advice on an unfortunate comment that was made by Senator Carr with regard to members of another parliament, which I understand is contrary to standing orders. I do not propose at this stage to repeat what Senator Carr said and give further currency to it. Senator Carr ought to know exactly what I am talking about. That unfortunate comment should be withdrawn.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, do you wish to speak on the point of order before I rule on it?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unusual that Senator Kemp should draw attention to anything that I have said. He seems to be rather thin-skinned these days. I was commenting on the actions of members of his own party in Victoria. I know he has been a victim of these very same degenerate elements, and I can understand why it is that he should be so sensitive to them.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, thank you. I will rule on the point of order. I ask you to withdraw the comments.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw any unparliamentary remarks. I understand that he is on the way out and I appreciate that one has to be courteous to a person on whose parliamentary career the sun is clearly setting. I appreciate that. I do not wish to be unkind to him. I think he has been given a unique opportunity to serve the Commonwealth in various roles. He was of course—and I know he is sensitive about this matter too—shadow spokesperson for the environment in 1996, and we do not always agree but I do think that he was most unjustly dumped by Howard. I think it was most unfortunate and it was malicious. Frankly, we have seen what he has done, and I know that the Prime Minister has a distinct dislike for the Kemp brothers. I know that to be true. It is well known in Victoria that the—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wasn’t that the last time he appeared on The 7.30 Report? The high-rollers GST affair?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was that problem he did have with articulating some of the more difficult aspects of government policy, and that was unkind—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I remind you of the question before the chair.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I would like to say is that I understand that the minister is concerned to try his best to defend what is a pretty weak government position. He was in a position to know something of these matters, and I have no doubt that, if he had been allowed to fulfil the potential that he had in this area, he would have done a much better job than the current minister. That is what really worries me about this particular legislation. I need to express our deep reservations about the current minister being up to the task of administering this legislation. This is a grossly inadequate piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that has failed to live up to its potential in terms of what could have been done.

The Evatt report provided the basis for the government to take determined action to improve the cultural heritage of Indigenous people in this country and to enrich the nation as a whole as a consequence. Unfortunately, the government has sought to use the administration of Indigenous cultural matters—as it has with the natural heritage question—in a most partisan and most directly political manner. It has sought to advantage what it sees as its support base to garner votes on the most spurious of grounds over a range of issues. But it has failed to use the powers available to it to genuinely protect the national estate and to genuinely take up its responsibilities and its international obligations, for fear of offending powerful interests who support the Liberal Party.

We have seen a repeated pattern of the corrosion of proper administrative practice. I know there is some language that concerns some of the members on this question, but it strikes at the heart of the problem of public administration with this minister. That is why I say this is a missed opportunity. While we are supporting the legislation, we do so in the context of knowing just how grossly inadequate it is and what the circumstances could have been if there had been proper consultation and if the government had a bit of gumption with which to pursue these important cultural issues. What you have is a situation in which this government has been dragging the chain.

It is now 10 long years since the Evatt report provided the basis for substantive legislative reform, and it is a tragedy that the government has missed this opportunity so comprehensively. It concerns me that the government’s neglect and its base politicisation of these questions have meant that, as a consequence, we as a nation are so much the poorer. National heritage is an important matter, and you would hope that the Prime Minister would take heed of the overriding concerns that are now being expressed about the administration of this portfolio by Senator Campbell.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I express the Greens’ deep concern that the government is missing an opportunity to properly review this act. The government, in its budget papers, articulated what I thought was a commitment to reviewing the act. It has allocated the minimum amount of resources that it can. As we have repeatedly said in this chamber, the act is desperately in need of reform. A review was done in 1996 which clearly said there was a need for reform.

Senator Hill committed to a review in 2003 and, if you read his words, I think it is fair to interpret that it was to be a comprehensive, public review. We are now getting a secret, internal review in which the government chooses whom to speak to. We, the community, do not find out what the stakeholders have said about this legislation. We do not know if it will be adequate. We do not know if it will be comprehensive. This government should rethink how it is going to approach this legislation and this review so as to deliver a comprehensive and adequate review that fully consults all stakeholders, that is public, that accepts public submissions and that enables the community to fully assess the full implications of this act.

Debate interrupted.