Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased, as a North Queenslander, to be part of this debate on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011. At the outset, it is important to note that our government is committed to delivering economic development and jobs for Indigenous people and to honouring our environmental and heritage responsibilities in that respect. We are talking about Cape York Peninsula and the declaration of wild rivers in that area by the Queensland government. This private senator’s bill attempts to undermine the state legislation that has been put in place. I remind the Senate that the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005 was carried in the Queensland parliament with cross-party support. As I have stated in this chamber before, I am of the view that this private senator’s bill is a political stunt and has nothing at all to do with economic development and the achievement of the aspirations of the people of Cape York. Yet again we have the Liberal and National parties playing politics with the future of the people of Cape York.

Our government is undertaking a range of measures to support Indigenous economic development and to create jobs through the sustainable management of natural resources, such as the Working on Country program, and we are working with Indigenous people to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. We are out there talking the talk and walking the walk. We are out there trying to turn around the lives of people in Cape York, and those on the other side are once again playing politics with the aspirations of the people they purport to represent.

We know there is still more that we need to do, at both the federal and state level, but, with respect, the private senator’s bill currently before the Senate poses more questions and complexity than solutions for Indigenous people in either the Cape York region or Queensland as a whole. But it is form for the people on that side to play politics rather than to actually work with people to achieve an economic outcome. The government does not support this bill and has been strongly advocating that, because there are a range of technical problems, the bill would benefit from further consideration. That is why we support a reference to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and consider today’s debate premature.

The opposition claim that this bill:

… will enable the Indigenous people of Cape York, the Queensland gulf region and other regions of Queensland, to use or develop their land as any other land holder may.

The government believe that this bill will not fulfil that claim and in fact may have a range of negative consequences for Indigenous people. With respect, the government will not be supporting such simplistic attempts to override the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005. Instead, we are committed to pursuing considered and inclusive solutions to properly address complex issues.

In his second reading speech, Senator Scullion stated:

This bill, the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011, is the reintroduction of a bill of the same name that passed the Senate on the 22 June 2010.

       …         …         …

We as senators should again support this bill …

However, this bill is different to the bill previously passed by the Senate in several important respects. There are matters that should be given serious consideration before this bill goes to a vote.

In terms of substantive effect, the key changes are that the 2011 bill—that is, the new bill before the Senate—extends its coverage from native title land to various kinds of Aboriginal land. Another difference is that it prescribes a method by which the agreement of native title holders for a wild river declaration can be obtained and it requires the Commonwealth to provide employment to people assisting in the management of a wild rivers area who lose their jobs as a result of the legislation. It is substantially different to the bill that was passed in this Senate last year and in that respect warrants a full inquiry.

These are not minor changes, yet it is clear that Senator Scullion was relying on senators to take him at his word and rush the bill through thinking that it was unchanged. In its current form the bill raises a number of issues about its potential scope and application. It is not clear whether agreement is required of all persons defined as an owner of the land concerned or how disagreements between different groups of owners are to be resolved. It is clear that this bill requires careful scrutiny and it is important that the Senate fulfil its obligations as a house of review and agree to refer the legislation to the inquiry, as has been moved.

The government respects the views of Aboriginal leaders in the Cape York area. In his second reading speech Senator Scullion stated that this bill:

… will restore the economic potential of land subject to declarations and assessment under the Queensland wild rivers legislation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

As senators should be aware, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics is currently conducting an inquiry into Indigenous economic development in Queensland and a review of the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010.

A number of stakeholders, including traditional owners, have been actively engaged in that review. It is important that the views of Indigenous leaders and stakeholders are heard and that this bill is not rushed through while the House inquiry is underway because this would be dismissive of the genuine engagement that many Indigenous people have made with that process. As part of that inquiry the committee has received a submission from the Wild Rivers Interdepartmental Committee representing some 12 different government agencies. The submission contains a detailed analysis of the opportunities for and challenges to Indigenous economic development in Far North Queensland and, as the submission notes, there is a tremendous amount of government activity occurring in Far North Queensland. Indeed, the government is the largest employer in the region.

The submission also canvases the wide range of private sector industries such as mining, agriculture and tourism and their potential to improve Indigenous economic development. These are the areas that should be investigated and debated if we really are serious about improving life for people on Cape York Peninsula and in the gulf. Overriding the Wild Rivers Act will not achieve lasting outcomes for Indigenous people. It will deliver more complexity and less security into the future. These are the areas that should be investigated and debated. Overriding the act will just not provide the solution.

The bill is not necessary to protect native title interests in the areas affected by wild river declarations because in our view the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005 does not affect native title rights and interests. The bill that passed through the Queensland parliament—and I again remind those sitting opposite that it passed with coalition support—explicitly says that native title interests are not affected. That is explicit in the bill and the legal advice to that effect supports that position.

Finally, if the opposition are serious about Indigenous economic development, surely it must be considered extraordinary that Senator Scullion has attempted to gloss over that this bill effectively acknowledges the potentially negative employment outcomes of the bill. It is in the bill. The bill recognises that there will be negative economic outcomes. I find it extraordinary that a senator from that side would acknowledge that a piece of legislation he is proposing will have negative economic outcomes for people of Cape York Peninsula and the gulf. That is why our government considers that the bill needs to be properly scrutinised. In that respect, I move by way of an amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

“the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2011”.

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

I want to start addressing the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 by stating the obvious—that is, the Greens care about and are deeply committed to the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We are a party that remains committed to the wider principle of self-determination, something other parties used to believe in before—in particular, the Labor Party—but seem to have now gone down the line of the new approach, which is a form of paternalism. The Greens care about and are deeply committed to protecting and conserving Australia’s biodiversity and natural heritage. For anyone who has paid attention to our efforts over the last few years and is aware of the significant work we have done both on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and on environmental conservation, this should be non-controversial and self-evident. However, some argue that you cannot have both environmental protection and conservation and economic development for Aboriginal communities. The Greens do not believe that this is the case. In fact I believe there is strong and compelling evidence that the two can go hand in hand.

It is fair to say there has been a concerted effort to try to reframe this debate, which is about how best to support Aboriginal communities and native title holders to exercise their underlying rights as the custodians of their lands and about how they can use their interests in the lands and see country as a basis for sustainable economic and community development, as a political wedge. They are trying to frame the debate such that the only choice is between mega-industrial development on the one hand, which we believe can ultimately end up in the interests of outside players and vested interests from the big end of town—there is plenty of evidence of that—or locking up land and ignoring people. We believe that is not true and there is plenty of evidence to show that conservation and development activities can in fact go hand in hand.

At the same time, there is also plenty of evidence of where an all-out approach to industrial development has totally failed to realise the hopes of Aboriginal landowners or deliver lasting benefits to their communities. I point to my home state of Western Australia and the Pilbara, where quite clearly the benefits developed from mining have not come to the Aboriginal people living in that area. There are also plenty of opportunities for sustainable development activities on Aboriginal lands which will include but are not limited to tourism and ranger programs. There is a lot of other potential for Aboriginal land.

In fact, the coexistence and interaction of development and conservation are explicitly recognised in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration recognises and acknowledges both a right to conservation and environmental protection for Indigenous lands, in article 29, and a right to determine strategies and priorities for the development of Indigenous lands and resources, in article 32. These rights are not contradictory—they coexist and interact within the framework of both Indigenous rights and decision making and Australian law—as clearly articulated in article 46, which states that these rights:

... shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations ... Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirement of a democratic society.

The coexistence and interaction of human rights should not be news to anyone in this place. I will return to the declaration later.

In relation to how we strike the right balance to deliver the best possible outcomes for both community development and conservation, from my point of view the ideal way forward is one where Aboriginal communities are central players and the key decision makers in decisions about both conservation and development—where they are resourced and supported to make informed decisions about which areas of their land they want to protect and where they believe some sorts of development activities might be appropriate and beneficial.

How you strike the right balance between development and conservation is not a simple issue, and efforts to reduce this complexity into black and white terms can be misleading and counterproductive, and ultimately lead to poorer outcomes for both Aboriginal communities and natural heritage outcomes. The place to begin is not in simply overturning state rights and state conservation laws to allow unfettered access for the destructive exploitation of resources but in governments establishing true relationships with Aboriginal people, using public investment to seed new enterprises and industries that build on and respect Aboriginal land interests, providing incentives to private enterprises to partner with and deliver opportunities to those communities, recognising and valuing the existing customary economy, and finding innovative ways of making Indigenous knowledge, skills and culture and caring for country deliver economic benefits.

Irrespective of the wild rivers laws, Aboriginal communities seeking to undertake development on their lands face a whole lot of other barriers and challenges, including addressing the limitations and complexities of the Native Title Act and needing to comply with the EPBC Act and a significant list of state based development and conservation legislation. To this end, the Greens believe there needs to be much more funding to provide support and assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to help them deal with the procedural requirements for dealing with economic development proposals, conservation and heritage proposals and joint management agreements. There are of course state and federal limitations and guidelines that apply to all development activities in Australia, irrespective of whether the land is Aboriginal land, freehold or crown land.

It has long been recognised that state and federal laws concerning conservation and development need to respect and include the rights, interests and cultural heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. While there has been some progress on these issues over the years, I am the first to admit we still have a way to go on getting this right. Nevertheless there is a clear differentiation of relationship between Indigenous rights in decision making across environmental and development regulation, and in my mind it makes perfect sense to recognise a continuum where the rights of traditional owners are strongest in relation to those activities which have the greatest impact on their pre-existing and underlying rights to their land.

Unfortunately, this bill seeks to turn this concept on its head. The place where these rights should have the strongest recognition and expression in law is where Aboriginal land and resources are threatened with destruction or appropriation. In native title law, the rights of traditional owners are expressed as rights to negotiate in relation to future acts where there is a change in tenure or land use that affects underlying native title rights, and the diminution of those rights is meant to be compensated in law.

If an act by a state government—for instance, in establishing or declaring a protected area—impacts on those native title rights then there is a right to negotiate and a right to compensation. There should be a clear obligation both to strongly take into account cultural heritage, values and Indigenous aspirations in the identification and declaration of those areas, and to support and resource Indigenous management or co-management of those areas. We believe this bill turns this approach on its head by giving individual ‘owners’ who are not necessarily traditional owners an absolute right of veto over conservation declarations which do not—as specified clearly in the provisions of the Queensland Wild Rivers Act—impact upon, effect or diminish those underlying native title rights but at the same time give them no rights of consent or veto, or to negotiate on destructive development activities which impact directly upon their native title rights and interests, and cultural and natural heritage values. We believe this is not the right approach.

Many arguments have been flung around during this debate. I do not have time to go into them, but let me say they are not true. We do not unthinkingly support the Queensland government or other organisations on this. We do not believe the Queensland government handled consultation on this in an exemplary manner.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are only doing it to get your preferences.

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

If Senator Macdonald would let me speak uninterrupted that would be appreciated. At the same time we also do not offer unthinking support to anyone claiming to speak on behalf of Aboriginal rights or the interests of all Aboriginal people, but we do not believe this is the right way to go when you look at the details of the bill. This bill is different from the first one that went through this place not so long ago.

This week we have been hearing calls for a new intervention in Alice Springs. We have deep concerns that this sends a particular message about the way that certain members of the coalition and, unfortunately, the government still want to take top-down approaches to the way we deal with Aboriginal issues—that is, not including them, taking a new paternalistic approach, not adequately consulting and believing that, for example, just sending in more police will fix a particular problem. In other words, I am not convinced that the coalition has changed its approach to the way it addresses Aboriginal issues. I am concerned that the discussion implies that this is about free, prior and informed consent; it does not in fact do justice to free, prior and informed consent and is giving it to a certain group of people over limited decision making.

If you look at the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, you see that it very clearly intends to describe and invoke universal rights that necessarily apply to all Indigenous peoples, not a particular group of Indigenous people, which is what, unfortunately, this bill does. It gives a particular group of Indigenous people some right of veto over a particular declaration, but not over all developments of their land. Our reading of it is that it also means it gives a group of people the right of veto over a declaration in a particular area. If there is more development they cannot exercise that right. It also then overrides the rights of other people, for example, further down the catchment area, who have their traditional lands. Once the group has made a decision, the next group cannot make a decision. In other words, that group’s rights have been overtaken. That is our reading of the bill. There are very concerning aspects in this bill in that it does not coincide with the requirements under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which I am very pleased to say Australia is a signatory.

These are the issues we believe need to be looked at because we believe there are significant problems in this bill, including that it fails to differentiate between the rights of different groups of traditional owners in relation to decision making concerning a river basin or floodplain and, as I said, that it impacts on other groups. We believe this bill has very major problems. We also believe that it needs to be sent to a committee so we will be supporting the second reading amendment. We believe these issues need to be looked at. They are new issues that have come up since the bill last went through this place. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before my brief contribution to this bill, I seek leave to incorporate a very learned, well researched and well argued speech by Senator Boswell, on the grounds that he is ill. The speech has been distributed.

Leave granted.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows:

The Senate is debating the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 introduced by my colleague Senator Scullion.

The essence of this bill is that it restores consent to Indigenous people about what happens on their land and to their people. This consent or agreement was taken away from them by the Queensland wild river declarations.

In the Queensland act, there is no requirement for notification and agreement with native title holders, claimants and bodies corporate. There is no compensation for impact on native title rights and interests. The majority of the Indigenous people on Cape York do not want the wild rivers regime foisted on them by the Queensland government. They feel that their future is forfeit to the demands of green groups, particularly the wilderness society.

If the Prime Minister was serious about empowering Indigenous Australians she would support the coalition’s legislation—legislation that would provide Cape York Indigenous communities with the right to an economic future on their own land.

Native title means nothing to Labor now the Greens hold crucial preferences. There is no such thing as a future act in the Queensland wild rivers land lock-up. If you lock up their land, you lock up their future. And when some leaders, of undoubted integrity like Noel Pearson, speak up, he is subject to attack and contempt.

When Queensland turned its back on native title in wild rivers, they also turned back the clock to before premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen gave Indigenous communities land in deeds of grant in trust, or dogits, as they were called. I well remember them being put in place. Land was given to Aborigines so they could manage it themselves and do what they wanted with it. With wild rivers, that self determination on dogit land has been forfeited.

The state government has locked up this land, not with a key, but with a web of sticky regulation.

Some people think that voting green and being part of groups like the wilderness society is a mainstream activity. I would say to those people, go up to Cape York and see how the Indigenous people live and how they want to live—as well as how they look after their own land. And tell them straight that you are against them, that you are against Indigenous jobs, business and a future.

The wilderness society is only interested in Indigenous people if they are as frozen in time as wild rivers themselves.

The Bligh government initially talked about how the impact would be only along a handful of pristine rivers. It turns out that they actually meant that entire river catchments and basins would be caught in the net, such that 80% of Cape York would be subject to yet another layer of regulation, effectively frustrating future opportunities for Indigenous people.

The Queensland Labor government has been scandalous in its approach to consultation and scientific research to support wild rivers declarations. Neither has been done anywhere near properly.

More offensive is their glass beads approach to winning over the limited Indigenous support that they have. The scarcity of jobs is so acute on the cape that the offer of a few ranger positions was all that was necessary to win some limited support. But that offers very little to very few.

Evidence was provided to the senate committee that the Queensland wild rivers declarations are inconsistent with or invalid under the commonwealth native title act. That means the commonwealth should act.

Noel Pearson said that the coalition’s bill ‘enhances the land rights of the native title holders of Cape York peninsula and will enable them to negotiate with the Queensland government so that they provide free and informed consent to any arrangements to protect the rivers of Care York peninsula, and it is consistent with the Keating Labor government’s commitment to the Mabo decision. Secondly, this bill is consistent with the commonwealth government’s commitments as a signatory to the international Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thirdly, the Queensland Wild Rivers Act has derailed our Indigenous reform agenda in Cape York peninsula, and this bill will put our work back on track.

I urge the Senate to see that the development agenda that the Indigenous people have for Cape York by definition means that they have got to have economic development. As Pearson noted, ‘The exercise of traditional rights and traditional activities is important but that will never lift our people out of poverty and misery. We have to be able to undertake land use that generates economic return for the people who live there. We are not going to be serious about closing the gap as to Indigenous disadvantage if we have this view that all that Aboriginal people should be happy with and all that they should be entitled to is to stand on one leg in the sunset picking berries. Fundamentally this is a racist expectation on the part of governments and other stakeholders to expect Aboriginal people to live in some frozen past.’

Earlier this February, the Prime Minister commented on ‘closing the gap’. She called on Indigenous people to “take a job when you find one; to create a safe environment; to send your kids to school, pay your rent, save up for a home; to respect good social norms and to respect the law; and to reach out to other Australians”. But in Cape York, the state Labor government is shutting down avenues for jobs and reaching out to the Greens via the wild rivers regime.

This is the very opposite of what should be occurring if we as a nation are serious about closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

It is feared by many in the cape that wild rivers is the stalking horse for World Heritage listing. The Commonwealth has been forced to clarify that they will not proceed with a World Heritage listing, without government to insist on consent why not the state government as well when it comes to wild rivers?

The federal minister was asked by the Nationals’ leader Warren Truss whether the government would proceed with tentative listing of Cape York on the world heritage register without local Indigenous support.

The minister gave a clear answer, saying ‘any negotiations going forward on tentative listing are dependent upon full consent and participation of Indigenous people on Cape York’.

Why is the state government not following this path also? The answer is because Labor wins seats and elections on green preferences and so rewards them, in the process tearing up Indigenous property rights.

Ninety-nine point nine per cent of the freehold land that is affected by wild rivers is Aboriginal land. Millions of hectares were granted by the Bjelke- Petersen government so that they could use the land as they determined. Large tracts have exclusive native title right, unextinguished. As Pearson noted: ‘In those areas the Wik people have a right of property. It is not just the right to hunt or gather; it is the right to construct a farm, construct a house, live a modern life ... A full, exclusive possession native title is a title that affords every act of ownership that can enter into the human imagination.’

Pearson said that ‘what the Bligh and Beattie governments have done here has taken the state of Queensland as far as land rights is concerned back to a pre-1984 position, because they have arbitrarily taken jurisdiction over Aboriginal land without obtaining the consent of the landowners.’

The Queensland Wild Rivers Act has derailed our Indigenous reform agenda in Cape York peninsula, and this bill will put our work back on track.

Federal Labor is not lifting a finger to stop Queensland. Labor derailing Indigenous development. There is a new form of property title in Queensland and it’s green. Whether it’s closing down fishing or locking up wild rivers, you can call it far north greensland.

In this exciting green armband view of the future, Noel Pearson is only allowed to be black if he goes fishing. How many times does he have to be dispossessed?

I was there when Joh gave all that land over in the early 80s. And now I see Labor taking it back for the Greens.

The bill before us rose directly from the time spent by the opposition leader in Indigenous communities. Did the wild rivers declarations come about as a result of Queensland’s leaders sitting down with Indigenous communities? Definitely not.

Australia cannot afford to alienate leaders of Noel Pearson’s calibre. He came in from the cold ‘rights only’ dialogue to seek economic and education empowerment as a way forward. Mr Pearson’s reaction to the punitive wild rivers legislation has been a ratcheting up of expressions of frustration. He describes this as the torment of powerlessness. It will be the political classes’ fault if Pearson and his followers become more radical. The left’s sell-out of Indigenous interests to capture the green lobby is wrong on so many levels and exposes the falseness of their years of claiming to be the champions of Indigenous Australians. It was all political expediency in the end. Indigenous interests have been ditched unceremoniously in favour of the more powerful green movement. No wonder there is torment amongst Indigenous leaders and a push to radicalism. Noel Pearson addressed my grandson’s school last year. I attended and was impressed with how the boys were inspired and enlightened. We cannot afford to lose to radicalism such powerful ambassadors for improving Indigenous lives. I would also like to reassure Noel that his efforts did cut through—to the young lads who will be future leaders and professionals and to politicians like me from the right. The opposition leader is listening and acting the Cape York land council is now taking the Bligh government to court over the wild rivers declarations of the Lockhart, Stewart and Archer rivers, alleging breaches of the native title and racial discrimination acts and that the legislative process was incorrectly followed. A great crime is being done to people who are too familiar with great crimes to survive without perhaps turning radical. We have been warned.

Balkanu, the Indigenous group from Cape York, explain their plight in their submission to the current inquiry: “The Wild Rivers Act and wild river declarations have gone well beyond the intention of the election commitment to prohibit and over regulate a wide range of lower level activities such as aquaculture, small scale commercial horticulture and small scale ecotourism ventures and Indigenous housing.”

“The declarations of the Stewart, Archer and Lockhart basins in April 2009 involved the declaration of thirteen separate wild rivers rather than three. The 2004 election commitment did not refer to basins. The Wild Rivers Act does not refer to “basins”. The premier, ministers and conservation groups have on many occasions stated that the election commitment was for 19 rivers, not basins.”

Balkanu points out that the Wild Rivers Act and declarations are inconsistent with several provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples such as article 19 which states that “states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their Free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Article 23 states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development”.

Indigenous economic development in Queensland held a public hearing in November 2010 in Cairns. Gerhardt Pearson, the head of the Balkanu Cape York development told the committee that: “There are more than 13 pieces of state and Commonwealth legislation that an Aboriginal entrepreneur, no matter how humble his or her aspirations, needs to navigate before any development can proceed.”

We have heard that there is not so much opposition to wild rivers from the gulf area. Mr Pearson pointed out that the declarations of wild rivers in the gulf has an impact vastly different from those on Cape York. Less than two per cent of the area covered under wild rivers declarations in the Gulf of Carpentaria is Aboriginal land whereas more than 90 per cent of the land in the Lockhart Basin and Stewart Basin wild rivers declarations is Aboriginal land and large areas of the Archer River Basin are Aboriginal land. Further declarations will result in much greater areas of Aboriginal land being included in declarations. There is no land where native title has been determined included in the declarations in the gulf. No Indigenous communities were included in the gulf declarations whereas Lockhart river’s and smaller communities such as port Stewart’s were included in cape declarations. There is no threat of World Heritage being laid over the top of wild rivers declarations in the gulf, whereas there is that possibility on the cape.”

Balkanu representatives also allege that senior officers of the department of natural resources and Minister Stephen Robertson misled the earlier senate inquiry in relation to development approvals. An analysis of the applications by Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation has shown that of the 113 alleged development applications approved, 79 were for exploration permits, of the 35 remaining “development approvals”:

17 were issued to government entities for activities such as fencing and gravel extraction relevant activity permit appear to relate to the century mine project, which is an existing development

three riverine protection permits are for Stan broke pastoral company, possibly for a fence

two vegetation clearing applications (Strathmore and Bar creek holding) are presumably for clearing for a fence or similar within an HPA

One approval was for Adels Grove camping park which is an existing development; and

three approvals may relate to mining leases, one of which had not been issued.

Nine of the so-called “development approvals” were actually riverine protection permits issued to the department of environment and resource management to construct one fence. As Noel Pearson stated, “If this is indeed the case, it is a casebook example of the ridiculous level of red tape and burdensome over regulation that confronts even the most minor project in a wild river area ... also claims that no development application had been turned down were misleading, as the Premier knows that applications that would be refused in a wild river areas are in fact ‘taken not to have been made’ under the legislation ... they are deemed not to exist and therefore cannot be refused.”

I said at the beginning that the coalition’s bill is all about consent. This is what Indigenous people want in Cape York. As Gerhardt Pearson told the current inquiry: “A consent mechanism is essential to protect Indigenous people from circumstances such as the wild rivers legislation, where a powerful, narrowly focused interest group, the Wilderness Society, is able to use its political might to override the rights of poorly resourced and disadvantaged Indigenous people. The Abbott bill seeks only to give the legitimate right of consent back to Indigenous communities. That right is at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Might I remind Labor members of this committee that the federal Labor government gave its support to that declaration on 3 April 2009 in a historic move that had been decades in the making. It is a bitter irony that on that very same day Anna Bligh declared the Archer, the Stewart and the Lockhart rivers as wild without the consent or support of Indigenous cape communities—no equality, no partnership, no good faith and no mutual benefit. Cape York Aboriginal leadership has presented a conservation and land management solution to the state government, to Ms Macklin, to former environment minister Peter Garret and, most recently, to Indigenous employment and economic development minister Mark Arbib. Our solution ticks all the boxes in terms of the state’s environmental aspirations—no new dams, no in-stream mining, no excessive water pumping—and ticks all of the boxes on restoring our rights, through an Indigenous land use agreement, to achieve conservation by a respectful consent. After a year of approaches to all of these politicians, we are still waiting for action. You have to ask yourself why.”

Should the Senate stand by and be silent while this happens? No, we shouldn’t just watch. We should pass the legislation before us that saves the hopes and visions of a future for Indigenous Cape York Queenslanders.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also seek leave to incorporate an article by Mr Noel Pearson in the Australian of 19 March 2011, which I have referred to the other parties.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that you want to table that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I want to incorporate it please.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows:

The Australian

Backroom deals bless their wildest dreams

Noel Pearson

From: The Australian

March 19, 2011 12:00AM

THE Labor chairman brazenly winks at environmentalists turning up at a federal parliamentary committee hearing in Brisbane.

Queensland bureaucrats, and the Wilderness Society work like a tag team, dumping forests of submissions before a second federal inquiry into Tony Abbott’s wild rivers bill by the House of Representatives economics committee, announced late last year as a stalling tactic by the government.

Strange decisions are taken about which submissions are accepted and allowed to be posted on the committee’s website, and which are not. Private hearings are held in remote locations, taking evidence only from witnesses sympathetic to the Queensland laws, without other traditional owners present.

From their opening submissions in Canberra, it becomes clear that the commonwealth bureaucrats are with the environmentalists and against Aboriginal landowners, They make outrageous assertions about how properly the Queensland government conducted itself in relation to its wild rivers scheme, knowledge that the commonwealth is simply not in a position to have.

I ask one senior bureaucrat: “Why is the commonwealth making assertions about facts that only the Queensland government can attest to?”

He blithely answers that if I disagree with anything, then we have every opportunity to point it out. I respond that while we understand it is up to us to refute misinformation that might be peddled by our opponents before the inquiry, surely when public servants make submissions, these should be relied on as impartial and factual.

I ask whether he understands the difference between staffers who work for politicians and the duties of members of the Australian Public Service. Despite these being pointed out, the commonwealth still has not corrected its misleading evidence. Needless to say, this inquiry is a pig circus.

Last week, at the other end of the continent, people such as former ABC Gardening Australia presenter Peter Cundall were getting a taste of the same shaft that TWS has stuck into hapless natives in Cape York Peninsula.

Except this time it was green v green, when federal Environment Minister Tony Burke approved the contentious Gunns paper mill with the connivance of key TWS operatives.

Sue Neales was left nauseous, writing in Hobart’s The Mercury last weekend: “But what was so sickening and saddening to observe this week was the slick and calculated feel of almost every public utterance, media release and altered nuance issued in relation to the [Bill] Kelty forest peace talks, forest protection plans and the Tamar Valley pulp mill.

“It was impossible not to watch all the dominoes magically line up within three days of each other, the linkages being made between the issues and positions critically shifted at the last minute, and not feel a sense of done deals sealed behind closed doors.”

Yes, Aboriginal landowners in Cape York know too well about done deals sealed behind closed doors. Neales writes: “The effect, yet again, was to make the majority of Tasmanians feel that they had been excluded from a cunningly manipulated decision-making process.”

Neales is scathing about the roles played by TWS national campaign director Lyndon Schneiders and Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger “That was exactly the trade-off or in-bed-with-the-devil deal that so many Tasmanians, especially those agitating against the loathed pulp mill, had feared was in train.”

When supporters on the ground see they’re being sold out, Neales writes of the dissembling from the leaders: “The back-pedalling that followed from the environmental groups this week, as their phone lines clogged with diatribes from enraged members, was both masterful and, it must be said, hardly honest.

“On Wednesday, a press release signed by the three environmental groups involved in the Kelty statement of principles negotiations came out with a statement that suddenly seemed to withdraw their backing of the previous week for the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill.

‘They called for federal Environment Minister Tony Burke to reject its approval, claiming it was now ‘totally unacceptable’.”

Neales points out that Gunns made its plantation-timber-only concession last year: “So for the Wilderness Society et al to claim in a press release on Wednesday that they were ‘rejecting’ the ‘current’ pulp mill proposal because it used native timber was disingenuous in the extreme, deceitful at best.”

Welcome to our world.

This is what happens when some green leaders adopt a by-whatever-means-necessary approach to protecting the environment. They end up treating communities with contempt and using genuine local and regional environmental patriots as fodder in their big-picture campaigns.

Schneiders is the embodiment of this new phase in environmental activism: the environmentalist as apparatchik rather than the old model of environmentalist as campaigner.

The influence and power of these green apparatchiks is impressive, and has delivered large wins. In Queensland, state Labor’s beholden to groups such as TWS for delivering green preferences. In return, they have all but outsourced their environmental portfolios to these groups.

But these green apparatchiks are trashing community relationships in the countryside. They ride roughshod over rural people, landowners who were pioneers in the Landcare movement, Aboriginal communities that share conservation goals, and industries that are genuine about sustainability. Indeed, in a moment of hubris Schneiders once revealed to academic researchers he considered public consultation “a long suicide note”.

Green apparatchiks sit down with Labor hardheads in state secretariats and play a giant game of chess, trading pawns across a chessboard the size of Queensland. Public consultation is a sham while deals are cut by the big boys.

This chessboard trade-off was evident when the water management deals cut between Queensland Labor under Peter Beattie and TWS came to grief with the Traveston Dam.

When the Greens and TWS went soft against the dam before the state election in March 2009, it was apparent that this did not just involve Labor preferences to Greens candidate Ronan Lee in the seat of Indooroopilly.

It pointed to the earlier below-the-radar deal to trade support for a dam in the southeast in return for wild rivers up north and out west. But then Peter Garrett, as environment minister, torpedoed Traveston. I wonder how many people in the Bligh government ponder the double game played by TWS: running dead in Brisbane but going by the back door to Canberra.

In any case, the Queenslanders lost $500 million on Traveston, proving how dangerous it is for governments to play environmental games with taxpayers money.

The Queensland Wild Rivers is truly draconian. It provides no appeal rights and no parliamentary review.

The minister has virtually unfettered powers, providing fertile opportunity for organisations such as TWS to become silent partners in government. Processes that conservation groups normally hold sacred—appeal rights, natural justice and procedural fairness—have been denied to Indigenous people in respect of wild rivers legislation.

Protection must be afforded Indigenous people from powerful single-issue interest groups intent on removing their rights.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is intended to lay the foundations for these protections. The right of free, prior and informed consent to policies and regulatory actions is at the heart of this protection.

State Labor has turned a blind eye to that principle, endorsed by its federal counterparts, and has focused instead on repaying political debts. Federal Labor’s principles in this area are to be tested.

Noel Pearson is director of the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

I thank the Senate for both of those incorporations. I urge senators and those interested in this debate on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 to have a serious look at Senator Boswell’s speech. As I say, it is a very well researched and detailed speech. It anticipated what I say are the quite shallow arguments by both Senator McLucas and Senator Siewert and really put the lie to those pious comments of the former two speakers.

Make no mistake about this: the opposition of the Labor Party and the Greens to this is purely political and, as almost everybody now knows, certainly Noel Pearson and most of the Indigenous people in Cape York, this is all about keeping Labor governments in power both in Queensland and federally by Greens’ support. The Greens, egged on by the Wilderness Society, simply say to Labor: ‘If you don’t do what we say in relation to wild rivers we will withdraw our support,’ whereupon both federally and in Queensland the Labor Party governments would fall.

Whilst I have been saying this for a long time, it is instructive to read Noel Pearson’s article, which I have also incorporated, where he clearly highlights that fact. As Noel Pearson said in his article:

Queensland bureaucrats and the Wilderness Society work like a tag team, dumping forests of submissions before a second federal inquiry into Tony Abbott’s wild rivers bill by the House of Representatives economics committee, announced late last year as a stalling tactic by the government.

I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with Noel Pearson all of the time, but in this instance I think all of the Indigenous leaders in Cape York want to be able to develop their land. There was a proposal by Cape Alumina, which of course is anathema to the Greens and to the Wilderness Society, for a new mine in the cape that would have provided real jobs, not these make-work jobs, for Indigenous people. This was destroyed by this wild rivers legislation and the way the Queensland government is administering it.

I want to make it clear to those who might be following this debate that, unfortunately, because of time limits—we do want to try to get this legislation voted on today so that we can determine the will of the Senate—my time has been limited to a mere six minutes, which is not going to give me much time to refute the arguments of the previous two speakers or to promote my own. Suffice it to say, and I repeat, that the article of Noel Pearson and Senator Boswell’s speech actually anticipated the stupidity of the Labor Party and the Greens and have answered many of those questions.

I point out that one of the things that is often said to me is that ‘wild rivers is good because it has all these wild rivers rangers, and that provides real jobs for Indigenous people’. The ranger program is a good one. It was started by the Howard government in the fisheries area to look after coastal and Ghost Net programs. It is a good program but it does not need to be related to wild rivers. It can go ahead whether there is a Queensland wild rivers program or not. So that is just absolutely ridiculous. It is a furphy. It is a disingenuous argument by Senator McLucas and Senator Siewert, who promote that.

Tony Abbott has brought this bill forward, as everyone knows—well, perhaps a lot of people do not know, because when Tony Abbott goes to Cape York he does not take a team of television reporters and newspaper journalists with him; he actually goes up there and works in the communities, and he has been doing that for a number of years—because he understands empathy. He understands the wishes and desires of Indigenous people to look after their own land.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He took three journos and they all got lost!

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy and his colleagues over there obviously do not believe Indigenous people are capable of looking after their own land. They have to have the big heavy hand of the government and the Greens and the Wilderness Society to tell Indigenous people what is good for them. Indigenous people reject that. They are offended by it, as most fair-minded Australians would be. It is about time the Labor Party and the Greens realised that Indigenous people are capable of looking after their own land. Good heavens, they have done it for hundreds of thousands of years! Why do you need the Queensland government and the Greens and the Wilderness Society to come in over the top and tell Indigenous people what is good for them? I urge the Senate to adopt this bill.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Queensland senator I rise today to defend the Queensland government’s Wild Rivers Act 2005, which was implemented to preserve the natural values of rivers that have been significantly affected by development—that is, rivers that have all or almost all of their natural values intact—and in doing so oppose this private member’s bill of Senator Scullion, the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011. As someone who has personally witnessed the wonder and beauty of the Wenlock River, one of the declared wild rivers, I am bewildered as to why anyone would not want to protect these natural waterways.

I am disappointed in Senator Scullion’s bill to overturn the Queensland legislation. It is a backward step in protecting and preserving our environment for our future generations and it is typical of a backward party. Unlike the coalition, the Australian Labor Party is a party of reform and wholeheartedly supports Indigenous Australian rights and fosters and encourages Indigenous economic development. This is evident in our implementation of the Native Title Act 1993. Those opposite refused to support that bill, and many of them are still members of the Senate today. Senator Minchin described the native title bill in 1993 as:

... a bad law; it is a racist law; it is centralist; it is highly divisive; and it is complex.

And let us not forget what else the opposition refused to do in their 12-year reign. When the Labor Party came to office we set out to say sorry to our Indigenous Australians. On 13 February 2008 Kevin Rudd, as Prime Minister, delivered the apology. For many years no-one spoke about the ill-treatment of our Indigenous Australians; it was pushed under the rug. After years of silence it was time to end this denial and to acknowledge the treatment received by our Indigenous Australians.

A fortnight ago the House of Representative Standing Committee on Economics went to Brisbane for a public hearing for their inquiry into Indigenous economic development in Queensland and review of the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010. Nigel Parratt, from the Queensland Conservation Council, represented 70 organisations, and its members are fully supportive of protecting our pristine rivers. He said Queensland had the last remaining free-flowing rivers in the world which were of ecological value and that they deserved protection, like other areas in Australia such as the Tasmanian forests and the Great Barrier Reef.

He is exactly right. These areas, which are protected by the Wild Rivers Act 2005, are home to rare and endangered species. On two occasions I have had the privilege to visit the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve on the banks of the Wenlock River and have experienced firsthand the beauty and wonder of this preserved area. On my first visit, the Australia Zoo ranger Barry Lyon showed me three of the eight perennial springs on the reserve which are located on a bauxite plateau. These springs are of great ecological value and they act as a refuge and water source for wildlife through the dry season. Bauxite does not absorb water but instead acts as a giant sponge and releases the water during the dry.

Research conducted in the area found an abundance of wildlife which relied on the existence of these beautiful springs. In 2008 a survey found 151 different vertebrae species, including 75 birds, 26 reptiles, 16 native amphibians, eight native mammals and 16 freshwater fish. This wildlife is of great ecological value, with many of these species taking refuge on the reserve due to declining populations and loss of habitat from strip mining across the Weipa plateau. According to the rainforest botanist David Fell, the bauxite plateaus provide a safe haven for flora which is of conservation significance, as some species have been recorded as found only in Eastern Cape York and the wet tropics of New Guinea. This area, too, was under threat from strip mining but, thanks to the Queensland government’s declaration of the Wenlock basin as a wild river under state legislation, the perennial springs on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve are now protected by a 500-metre buffer zone, and there is now a one-kilometre exclusion zone around the Wenlock River.

One of the biggest concerns of this issue is the misinformation travelling around the communities—and we have heard a bit of misinformation being delivered and advocated by those opposite this morning. The Director of the Cape York Institute, Noel Pearson, believes that the wild rivers legislation will impede Indigenous economic development and has referred to the law as colonialism. This is simply not true. The Queensland government’s Department of Environment and Resource Management states:

A wild river declaration means extra protection for the river system, but in practice that means no change for most people who live or work around the river system, or who use the river.

It continues to allow grazing and fishing. In fact when I was up there I caught a barramundi for the first time in my life. That is an example of what you can do in these areas. However, you have the likes of Noel Pearson and others claiming that you cannot fish in these areas. That is just not true. The legislation allows tourism and camping. I actually saw pig hunters in the region when I was up there. You could hear the guns firing of an evening. So it is just another fallacy being peddled that you cannot do these activities in the areas which they claim are locked up. The department states also:

Indigenous cultural activities, ceremonies and harvesting of bush food and medicines is permitted, and the enjoyment of native title unaffected.

Outstation development can continue.

Recreational boat users can continue to use the rivers and creeks.

Mining, grazing and irrigation continues today throughout declared wild river areas.

New developments that do not impact the health of the river can still occur.

That is the framework. Those are the boundaries on what you can do on these wild rivers, as opposed to what is being suggested by others. As you can see, the legislation does not prevent Indigenous people using their land. In fact, it states that cultural activities are permitted. Mr Pearson also believes that the legislation prevents Indigenous people developing the land and therefore eliminates any avenue for escaping the poverty cycle. This, too, is incorrect. Mr Pearson’s view is not shared by all Indigenous Australians in Cape York. Northern Kaanju traditional owner David Claudie came to Canberra last year, along with a number of other traditional owners, to voice his opinion on this very subject of the importance of wild rivers. In the Age of 30 September 2010 he said:

Noel Pearson doesn’t speak for us. He’s not our leader.

In fairness, that is a statement that I have heard from a number of traditional owners up in the cape.

Australia Zoo’s submission to the committee discusses the budding ecotourism industry in the cape with Cook Shire tourism officer David Barker, claiming 60,000 to 80,000 visitors each year. It states:

The region tends to attract more adventurous-type visitors who enjoy camping, photography, natural history (even in a general sense), fishing and learning about the area’s Indigenous culture, and its Indigenous and non Indigenous history.

Along with ecotourism comes employment. Australia Zoo indicates that Indigenous Australians—

... have become successfully engaged in cultural and wildlife guiding, fishing charter operations and developing camp grounds.

As you can see, we have more to lose in this situation than to gain. If the Queensland government’s wild rivers legislation is overturned we could see mining companies stripping the land to obtain bauxite and lose all the natural flora and fauna which has been there for millions of years. We could see water being extracted from our pristine rivers, affecting the flow, and we would see a change in water quality. We would lose the natural environment that tourists visit Cape York to see. In the long run, wouldn’t it be better to protect these rivers now rather than try to fix them up later? I reiterate that I have been up there on two occasions. I know some of the senators opposite have made visits to the cape, and we heard from Senator Macdonald earlier about Mr Tony Abbott going to the cape, but I would suggest that I am the only senator in this chamber who has had the opportunity and been willing to actually go on a wild river to see the effects this legislation would have in overturning the Queensland legislation.

It is fine to fly around in a light aircraft, land on air strips and talk to people on the ground. But actually going and talking to traditional owners and seeing what the effects would be on the beauty of these particular areas is certainly something different. That is something that disappoints me—that those who travelled up to the cape never took the opportunity to do it. They went and spoke to a wide range of people who certainly had different points of view, but unless you experience the nature and what the effects of particular mining would be, like what Cape Alumina would have done to the Wenlock River, you will not have an appreciation or understanding of the effects of this bill if it overturned the Queensland legislation for wild rivers. I urge everyone in this chamber to protect our natural environment and leave these pristine areas for our future generations to enjoy. This is why we in government emphatically oppose this bill. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government, as people will know, will not be supporting the opposition’s attempts to override the Queensland government’s Wild Rivers Act. We respect the views of Aboriginal leaders in the Cape York area. Our view is that engaging directly with the Queensland government and Aboriginal leaders on these issues is the best policy response. We have been talking to both Indigenous stakeholders and the Queensland government to work towards a solution on these issues. An effective and lasting resolution of the wild rivers issue will ultimately be reached, of course, between the Queensland government and the Indigenous people of Cape York. In that sense, we will not seek to overturn the Queensland government’s legislation.

This piece of legislation, the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011, has already been before my committee, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, so I am pretty familiar with the players in this legislation and the issues, as well as the political attempt by those opposite to overturn what has been a process between people in Cape York and the Queensland government.

We are committed to delivering economic development and jobs for Indigenous people but not in this way, not in undermining the role of the people in Cape York and the role of the Queensland government. We will honour our environmental and heritage responsibilities. We are undertaking a range of measures to support Indigenous economic development, creating jobs through the sustainable management of natural resources, such as through the Working on Country program, and working with Indigenous peoples to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. I take this opportunity to remind people in this chamber that today is in fact that day—National Close the Gap Day. It is interesting that we are talking about legislation that overturns the rights of Indigenous people in the Cape York area, rights that have been negotiated with the Queensland government through this legislation.

There is still more to be done, of course, at both the federal and state level. With respect, the private member’s bill currently before the Senate poses more questions and complexity than solutions for Indigenous people in either Cape York or Queensland. We do not support this bill and we have been strongly advocating that because there are a range of technical problems. This bill would benefit from further consideration. I notice that it is due to come back to my legal and constitutional committee and I will have a bit more to say about that in a minute.

We do support a reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and today’s debate is in fact premature. The opposition claims that this bill will enable the Indigenous people of Cape York, in Queensland’s gulf region, and other regions of Queensland to use or develop their land as any other stakeholder may. We believe that this bill will not fulfil that claim and that it in fact may have a range of negative consequences for Indigenous people. With respect, the government will not be supporting such simplistic attempts to override the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005. Instead, we are committed to pursuing considered and inclusive solutions to properly address complex problems.

I will now make a few comments about the bill. In his second reading speech, Senator Scullion stated that this bill, the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011, is the reintroduction of a bill of the same name that was passed by the Senate on 22 June 2010 and went on to say that ‘we as senators should again support this bill’. This bill is fundamentally different to the bill that was previously passed by the Senate in several important ways and in a range of different aspects. There are matters that should be given serious consideration before this bill goes to a vote. In terms of substantive effect, the changes that are in this new bill before the Senate actually extend its coverage from native title land to various kinds of Aboriginal land; prescribe a method by which the agreement of native title holders—for a wild rivers declaration—can be obtained; and require the Commonwealth to provide employment to people assisting in the management of a wild rivers area who lose their jobs as a result of the legislation.

I also note that Senator Ludwig has, in fact, referred this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and that there is a proposed amendment from Senator Scullion that we only look at aspects of this bill that we have not looked at previously. From my comparison of the two bills, that means we will be looking at this bill before us in its entirety because there are some very fundamental differences between the two pieces of legislation. The three areas that I outlined are not minor changes at all. I think it is clear that Senator Scullion is relying on senators to take him at his word and rush the bill through, thinking that it is unchanged. But in its current form, the bill raises a number of issues about its potential scope and application. It is not clear whether agreement is required of all persons defined as the ‘owner’ of the land concerned or how disagreements between different groups of owners are to be resolved. It is clear that this bill does require careful scrutiny and it is important that the Senate fulfil its obligations, as we always do, and look particularly at this piece of legislation.

As I said, it has been impressed upon people that this is, in fact, a reintroduction of the bill of the same name. My reading of it is that there is actually a whole range of differences between this bill and the bill of 2010. In fact, nearly every clause is different. So my understanding is that, while you might seek to limit our inquiry to just those matters we have not inquired into before, as every single clause is nearly different then we will be inquiring into the bill in its totality. Only the commencement clause in this bill is the same. It is important to note that if we had the time perhaps we could go through the 2011 bill and the changes clause by clause. Time will not permit us to do that now, but we will be scrutinising every word, every clause and every difference between this bill and the last bill just to make sure that we are inquiring into everything that is different from what was there last time. My reading of it is we will not be looking at the commencement clause but we will be looking at everything else. This will make it clear that Senator Scullion’s claim that this is the same bill is false and suggest, as I said, that the opposition were relying on senators, including the people in this chamber, to take them at their word in order to rush this bill through. Yet again we see that the opposition cannot be taken on their word. It cannot be taken at face value. In fact, they are not genuine about helping Indigenous people at all.

The wording of the long title of the new Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 has changed from the previous version, to begin with. The new bill is described as an act to protect the interests of Aboriginal ‘people’, in place of ‘traditional owners’ in the old bill. The term ‘Aboriginal people’ is not defined in the bill. For starters, there are already three differences and I have not even got past clause 2. As another example, I turn to clause 3, Definitions. Three new terms are defined in clause 3 which were not included in the previous bill. Some of these are either unclearly defined or have a definition whose implications are unclear. The first new term is the concept of ‘Aboriginal land’. The previous bill only referred to native title land. Aboriginal land includes land in which native title exists as well as land subject to certain other interests. This other land includes land granted to, leased to, granted or leased for the benefit of, or held on trust for, an Aboriginal person—or Torres Strait Islander in some circumstances—or Aboriginal corporation. It also includes land reserved for a community purpose that is, or includes, Aboriginal purposes. The implications of this definition are unclear due to the way the term is used in other parts of the bill. The second new term is the concept of ‘owner’ of land, which is closely linked to the first new concept of ‘Aboriginal land’. The concept of ‘owner’ replaces the previously undefined term of ‘traditional Aboriginal owners’. The term ‘owner’ refers to native title holders as well as persons with an interest in Aboriginal land, such that each category corresponds to each of the categories in the definition of ‘Aboriginal land’. Some areas of land fall in more than one category of ‘Aboriginal land’ and therefore will have multiple categories of ‘owner’ for that part of land.

What I want to highlight in my very brief analysis of the differences between the two bills is that this bill before us is, in fact, a very different piece of legislation, a vastly different piece of legislation, from what we saw in 2010. I am very pleased it is coming to my legal and constitutional committee, where we will sort this out. (Time expired)

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

It is rare that you rise in this place to provide support for a piece of legislation that will actually provide clear equity, right a wrong and correct an injustice. I thought I would kick off by dealing with some of the contributions we have had today. I have to commend Senator Macdonald for his excellent contribution. Senator McLucas thinks this is some sort of a political stunt—more people will vote for us because we have gone through this process. She also said the notion of consent, of actually asking someone for written permission, which is in essence all that the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 does, was all too difficult. The bill says:

The development or use of Aboriginal land in a wild river area cannot be regulated under the relevant Queensland legislation unless the owner agrees in writing.

It is as though consent is something that is such a mystery that we have never sought it out before; it just all too difficult. Of course, we know that is absolute bunkum. We know that the Queensland government that she is so keen to protect actually uses consent provisions in a number of their negotiations. It is our submission that this principle of consent be provided across the board in these negotiations.

I will come back to Senator Siewert’s contribution last. Senator Furner basically believes that somehow supporting my bill is going to stop the protection of rivers. He also went on to embark on this pretty weird story: ‘There are still things you are going to be able to do: catch a barramundi, shoot a pig or go and live in a tent for a couple of days. You know what? You are also going to be allowed to do cultural activities.’ Thanks a lot, Senator; that does not sound at all patronising! Thank you very much for codifying what they can do in their lives on their land. Thanks a lot. You do not have to wonder why they feel patronised when they hear that sort of input.

As for the number of people in Cape York who are against this, I have acknowledged David Claudie and a couple of others who have signified their opposition to this for a variety of reasons. I acknowledge and respect that. But Cape York people are represented by the Cape York Land Council and they had a unanimous vote that said, in effect, you should support this legislation. As for the laughable comments from Senator Furner that you really should go there, get on the ground and sit in the river, I am glad we did not take his advice. It is a very bad time of year to visit because there is lightning.

Senator Crossin now says that the Labor Party are going to honour their environmental and heritage obligations. That is terrific; that is fantastic to hear. Somehow apparently this legislation is going to overturn the rights of people in Cape York. I can tell you I had some difficulty putting that together, given that all it does is demand the right to and the dignity of consent. She went on to say that this is all very confusing and hard. We have got all sorts of different types of land. She went through the eight different types of land and it is almost like she was aghast at actually providing more consent to not only native title holders but the whole lot of Aboriginal people. That is exactly the intent. We should not embargo the provision of the right in this regard to one particular group. We should include all Aboriginal people, not just native title holders. I again indicate to the good senator, who will be pontificating on this in her position as chair of the legal and constitutional committee, that we also support this bill going back to the committee. I know it will be dealt with there and I am looking forward to their deliberations.

I do not think that the Wild Rivers Act 2005 was provided with any mischief. I do not think that the Queensland government said, ‘How can we take rights off people?’ That was not the case at all. In fact, this particular piece of legislation, as sometimes happens in this place, was not actually provided by the Queensland government; it was actually a function of the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society have obviously decided that they need this piece of legislation to either sell a brand or do whatever it is. They are pretty keen on this legislation. If you want any detail on this legislation, do not go to the Queensland government because I do not think they will be able to give you direct answers about what the motive was. The Wilderness Society will have every rag and detail of this and I will speak about their full involvement in a moment.

The Queensland legislation seemed pretty harmless on the face of it. It was passed in 2005 and was not completely opposed by those in the opposition. But according to many Aboriginal landowners in the area—they are the people on the ground being impacted and they should know—the wild rivers restrictions provide a huge impediment to sustainable development. Noel Pearson, who has been mentioned a couple of times before both favourably and otherwise, is somebody who I have a great deal of respect for. I respect his intellect and his thoughts on this process. He says that the bill before us today:

… enhances the land rights of the native titleholders of Cape York Peninsula and enables them to negotiate with the Queensland Government so that they provide free and informed consent to arrangements to protect the rivers of Cape York Peninsula …

I will just go back to some comments from Senator Siewert. I have left the best till last because, as I invariably do, I agree with you, Senator. I do not think that there should be any difference between the capacity to provide environmental protection and consent. I think they can coexist and that is why I call on you now to have another think about your position. I thought your contribution was excellent but it left me a bit disappointed at the end that you are not going to support the legislation. Consent is a provision that I am giving to these people. All you have to do is provide them with the option to consent. I think that can sit alongside the environmental protections that we have in the cape and it will re-empower the Cape York Land Council and all the people in the cape to go back to the negotiating table with the Queensland government to continue the good work that they were all doing to provide protection to those rivers.

The processes of the Queensland government are very interesting. They are saying, ‘We do not really want any consent,’ and I guess we understand why that is the case now. But on 6 August 2008 we completed 10 years of negotiations between the Lama Lama people—the mob around the Kulla National Park—and the Queensland state government. What we had at the end of the 10 years was an Indigenous land use agreement that was in effect created for Kulla National Park. That is 160,000 hectares of national park in the magnificent McIlwraith Range—a fantastic area with a great level of protection and access. It was done with the consent of the traditional owners of that land.

Interestingly, a similar area of land directly adjacent to the first—the other half, if you like, of the land that was available—was granted as Aboriginal land under the Queensland Land Act 1991 for Indigenous economic development. That is what it was specifically set aside for. We had just done an ILUA on the land. We had the remaining land set aside for economic development. Suddenly, with the ink hardly dry on the ILUA they said, ‘By the way, on the remaining land we’re just going to give you a couple of wild rivers declarations, and we’re not even going to talk to you about it—you’re going to be told what’s happening to your land in this regard with this piece of legislation instead of us having to talk and maybe be a bit frustrated for 10 years because you have the right of consent under the other law.’ That was absolutely disgraceful.

I have visited Aurukun and spoken to many of the people in that area about the Aurukun wetlands. The Archer River Basin wild river declaration was gazetted on 3 April 2009. Traditional owners were absolutely astounded to find out after going through some consultation—which was rare on the wild rivers stuff, but actually happened in this case—that the Queensland government declared all of the Aurukun wetlands as part of it. That was not included in the process of consultation. It is a mystery as to why that happened. But the freedom of information material later revealed that the wetlands that were not consulted on or talked about were included on the basis of a submission from our old mates the Wilderness Society. In the same way as the Greens are shackled to this government, with this government being dragged around by the Greens, the Queensland government are in complete thrall in this matter to the Wilderness Society. Outside of the process, with no respect given to Indigenous people, it is: ‘Oh, by the way: can you just stick this in there? I know we haven’t told the owners about it, but we think it’d be a nice colour to have on the map.’ It is an absolute outrage. Support for this legislation today will right that wrong.

Imagine a non-Indigenous land owner in a similar circumstance, and the government says, ‘We’re consulting with you, because we’re going to build something horrible on your land,’ whatever that may be. And then when it is over, when they arrive to do something it is completely different from what was talked about. The world would be outraged. We should not be less outraged today about what has happened to the people of Aurukun under this legislation.

We have spoken today about the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It outlines the right of free, prior and informed consent to policies affecting them. That was mentioned earlier today. It is at the heart of this protection. It was endorsed by the federal government—by this government—on 3 April 2009. Ironically, that was the very same day that the Queensland Premier announced the declaration of the Cape York wild rivers and in so doing contravened those very same principles that her federal counterpart endorsed. So here is an opportunity today to right another wrong and for those on the other side to support this legislation and fix that. Who knows? Anna Bligh might have had another bad hair day. But this is an opportunity to put a wrong right. Do not let this opportunity go.

It would have been a little fairer if the Queensland government had before the election talked about the declarations of the Archer, the Lockhart and the Stewart and told Indigenous voters that that is what they were going to do. But they did not. They were silent. Immediately after the election, declarations rolled out. So they must have known that they would have been greeted glumly.

Let us be very clear about the position of the Queensland government, the Australian Greens—I hope that you change your mind, Senator Siewert—and the Wilderness Society particularly. They all have comments on the record which substantiate what I am about to say. Their position is that somehow, as a part of Aboriginal land conservation, we should not only conserve the land but them, too. Their position is that Aboriginal people should be frozen in time, perhaps standing on one leg, so that when the tourists come and see the wonderful biodiversity the Aboriginal people are part of it. They want to make sure that Aboriginal people do not have the same opportunities as others. The Wilderness Society would say, ‘We have saved this area.’ I am not sure what from, but they say that they have saved this area.

I remind all those in this place that the land is in a pristine condition. And it will remain in that pristine condition, not because of the Wilderness Society or the Labor Party or the Queensland government but because of the fantastic work of Aboriginals in that area since colonisation. They were the ones who kept this land pristine. It is a slap in the face for those people from Cape York to say, ‘Oh, they’re all going to go and build some massive dams,’ or one of these other weird fantasies that have been thrown up.

It is very unfortunate that Anna Bligh has not taken the opportunity to amend her own legislation to protect the rights of her own constituency. I am not sure when they put the legislation through if they countenanced what was going to happen because of it. She has had that opportunity, though. We have called on her to change that legislation. She has not. That disappoints me. But there is still an opportunity. By supporting this legislation in this place, you will be restoring the right that so many of us take for granted: simply, the right to consent to changes being made on your land; to consent to changes about the use of your land.

I believe the Prime Minister when she says that she is very serious about empowering Aboriginal Australians. In the paper today, I note that it says that she is going to Alice Springs. I hope that she takes the opportunity to go with my leader to send a signal to Australia that this is important enough for bipartisanship. I would also like the Prime Minister to understand that supporting this legislation is absolutely essential to ensure that we are sending a signal to all Australians that we are fair dinkum about giving Aboriginal people the same access and equity that non-Aboriginal people enjoy. Throw away the shackles of the green movement ; throw away the shackles of the Wilderness Society and stand up for Australians, and particularly stand up for our First Australians.

As an amendment to the government’s second reading amendment, I move:

After “10 May 2011”, add:

and that in conducting its inquiry, the committee should only inquire into those provisions of the bill which have not been previously examined by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in its inquiry and report into the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 [No.2].

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Scullion’s amendment on sheet 9066, amending the government amendment, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.