Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Brockman:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The federal Labor Government's commitment to implement cultural heritage laws, similar to the WA Labor Government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, that has caused confusion, uncertainty, and disruption across every part of society, particularly local government, agriculture, and mining.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this matter of public importance reflecting on my journey around the state of Western Australia over the last week. On Monday of last week I was in the central south-west town of Katanning, part of the Great Southern region. It is an inland town, in an area of wheat and sheep farming, a regional community relatively small in size—around 3½ thousand people. In that community of around 3½ thousand people, some 650 of them came to a community hall to look at a couple of issues, one of which was the ban on live sheep exports. But the other issue—and undoubtedly it was the issue that drew the vast majority of the crowd—was the state Labor Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act.

I know most Western Australians are very well aware of this, and I note my two good colleagues Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Smith will speak on this MPI today. Most Western Australians have gained an understanding of this issue over the last month or two. They probably hadn't heard about it before that. The state Labor legislation actually went through parliament a while back. It didn't cause much of a ruffle then. It was rammed through parliament. It was guillotined through parliament with no debate, no upper house inquiry. But the devil was very much in the detail of the regulations that came out earlier this year. As soon as, particularly, farmers but all property owners—miners, other land users—saw those regulations, it immediately, almost overnight, became apparent how poorly drafted, how poorly thought through and how poorly implemented this legislation was.

How does this reflect on this place and the federal Labor government? It reflects quite directly, because, as my friend and colleague Senator Smith pointed out earlier today, the origin of this was the Juukan Gorge inquiry that took place, looking at that incident and how it should be responded to. The state Labor government responded in a particular way, with disastrous results. But we also know that the federal Labor government has committed to put in place its own Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. We are deeply fearful, because there has been no consultation with the agricultural community. As far as I'm aware, as far as I can find out, there has been no consultation with other land users such as the mining industry and other affected landholders. There has been no consultation with our shadow minister, even though Labor claims it wants to be bipartisan in this area.

As Senator Smith stated, we fully support the protection of Aboriginal heritage. What we will fight against every day is poorly drafted, poorly implemented, poorly thought through legislation which directly impacts on landholders right across, in my case, Western Australia and which has the impact to affect landholders right across this wonderful country of ours. We will fight against that every day. I've spoken about the Katanning meeting. At a Dawesville meeting, there were another 250 people. At a meeting just yesterday in Waroona, I believe, again there were hundreds of people coming out, concerned about the impacts of this cultural heritage legislation. Farmers have talked about whether this will send them bankrupt or to jail.

We've been asking some pretty simple questions. The Labor government here tells us that they want to be bipartisan about this, but they haven't even talked to the agricultural community about it and they haven't even talked to the shadow minister about it. So we have to ask the question, reflecting on what we now know about the state Labor government: What has this Labor government got to hide?

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's one year in, and I still cannot believe the misinformation that those opposite thrive on spreading. Aren't you tired of this constant fearmongering? Senator Brockman has raised this MPI to make a cheap political point, and it serves as proof that those opposite will do anything to tear down the Voice. This is not just my observation; it is also the observation of former WA Indigenous affairs minister Ben Wyatt. He told ABC Radio Perth: 'I think that some people are using this as perhaps a tool to try and oppose the Voice.'

Implementing effective cultural heritage laws is an important issue and shouldn't be used to drive a wedge between our farmers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We know too well the consequences of not having comprehensive cultural heritage laws in place. In 2020, a 46,000 year old sacred Aboriginal site, Juukan Gorge, was destroyed by a mining company—a tragedy but, sadly, a legal one. The Australian people, quite rightly, were appalled, and several senior executives at the mining company lost their jobs. This is a serious issue, and I'm glad that the WA and federal Labor governments are taking action.

What would those opposite have us do? Nothing. They want us to abandon all cultural heritage protections and continue to allow the destruction of sacred sites. But, wait: let's hit the pause button on this drama for a moment. Can we not have both progress and preservation? Surely there is a way to navigate this intricate dance between cultural heritage and economic prosperity without tripping over our own toes. But this is no surprise from the 'no-alition', because whenever they hear any decent idea they say no. Instead, they try to pit one group against another for political gain.

The government's commitment is about updating our existing national laws to make sure a tragedy like Juukan Gorge never happens again. Juukan Gorge was not just a mine site or a simple archaeological dig; it was a portal to the past, a living, breathing testament to the stories and traditions that shaped the culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, by extension, contributed to the fabric of our society and our identity as Australians. Our goal is to have laws that better protect First Nations heritage while giving businesses, farmers and others more certainty. We can do both. Senator Brockman has obviously forgotten that both major parties agreed to protect First Nations heritage and update our national laws, because the then minister and now Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: 'This is about government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them.' What do they think the Voice is about? It is also important to note that the work on updated national laws was started by the previous Liberal government and has been continued by this government—an inconvenient truth for Senator Brockman, I'm sure.

What's changed since Juukan Gorge? Shameful political opportunism from those opposite. This government is above that, and I'm sure you've picked that up. We are working with First Nations groups to consider updates to the existing national laws. This process is still in its early stages. We will also be consulting closely with business, farmers, environment groups and many others as we go. We won't be rushed, we won't cut corners and we won't be distracted by the 'no-alition's' political opportunism. I also want to make it clear there will not be a Commonwealth takeover of state laws, and nor will we be adopting or duplicating existing state and territory regimes. This is about updating and modernising our existing national laws to make sure that a tragedy like Juukan Gorge doesn't happen ever again.

We are determined to strike a commonsense balance to ensure better protection of First Nations heritage as well as more sensible development and infrastructure planning. Let's be real: no cap. It is crucial to recognise that protecting cultural heritage and promoting economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, respecting and preserving First Nations heritage can lead to sustainable and responsible development, fostering cultural tourism and promoting an inclusive society. While there are those on scare campaigns and petty politics, the adults will get the job done on our side.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MPI before the chamber today takes me right back to the fearmongering that politicians undertook in response to the Native Title Act. 'They're coming for your backyards,' they said. And yet here we are again with a Native Title Act that is pretty weak, in my opinion. Not only has it failed to steal people's backyards, but, in lots of cases, it has actually helped industries such as agriculture and mining. The sheer ignorance of this MPI still astounds me, and I'm lost to it. How dare people stand in this chamber and lecture me about protecting culture—protecting cultural heritage, protecting my lands. My people have lost so much, yet people in this place and in my home state of Western Australia want to whinge and complain that they might actually have to put in a bit of effort and ask the people whose land they're on. They do an acknowledgement of country every morning that they're in this place but continue not to want to ask whether there's a burial ground under there—whether there are bones there that were there before they came. It's 65,000 years of culture. This is our country. You built a Native Title Act to make sure that I needed to prove through anthropological links—through my connection to country—that I had an identity. You did that.

On the land that pastoralists and farmers who Senator Brockman has met with and wants to talk about, my hometown is Kojonup, right across the road from Katanning. One of my ancestors' burial grounds is on the farm that belongs to my family, so it's close to home. But these pastoral acts and others are enabling legislation to steal land. Every mining company and pastoralist in this country is operating on stolen land. These laws at both the federal and state levels come as a direct result of what happened at Juukan Gorge. I served on the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia alongside Senator Smith. To some people, what happened at Juukan Gorge might have just been a rock shelter—a few carvings, a bit of rock art—that got in the way of business in this country, but that is our culture. That is the oldest continuing living culture in the world. Juukan Gorge showed human occupancy that dated back 46,000 years, and those ancient rock shelters held onto that history and that continuing culture for the PKKP people. Juukan Gorge was a sacred site and still is, but, like a lot of our cultural heritage, it was destroyed, and it was done legally. You can't tell me that these laws are not being disrupted and broken every single day. I'd like to think that we'd moved on from the dog whistling but, unfortunately, we haven't. We haven't matured as a country, and I wait for that moment.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the very sensible motion that has been put forward by Senator Brockman. I just want to read what it is so that those following the debate understand it. We have the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act in Western Australia. As it says here in the motion, the federal Labor government has a commitment to implement cultural heritage laws similar to the WA Labor government's Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. That has caused confusion, uncertainty and disruption across every part of society, particularly local government, agriculture and mining. This is absolutely true. What you see right now in Western Australia is confusion, uncertainty and disruption across every part of society, particularly those operating in the agricultural area. I know that my good friend Senator Brockman—who has generations of experience through his family and through his work as a senator working across the agricultural sector—knows full well. As he outlined in his contribution, he's been at several events across the state where these issues have been raised.

Senator Payman came in here and said that this is all about scaremongering around the Voice. This motion doesn't mention the Voice. There is actually no conflation here. In fact, the only one that is conflating this motion and this act with the Voice is in fact the architect of that act and Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook. Roger Cook said:

Our Aboriginal cultural heritage laws do the same thing as the Voice.

So the only one that is conflating this issue with the Voice is in fact the Premier of Western Australia. It is the Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, that is conflating this issue with the Voice.

The federal government have an opportunity to deal with this issue of uncertainty that has been created by their colleagues over in Western Australia and put it to bed. They could rule out implementing laws that are similar to what is happening in Western Australia and having them apply right across the country. They could rule that out. It is probably not in my party's interest to give political advice that would help the government, but in this case I will because it is important for the future of this country that they provide some certainty for landowners, mining companies, those involved in agriculture and those involved in development. Provide some certainty. Rule out implementing the kind of shambolic legislation that we have operating right now in Western Australia, because it is diabolical. It is diabolical legislation that was rushed through the parliament. That's what happens when you have a parliament that is just so controlled. When there are no checks and balance, that is what happens: you rush through legislation. It is very, very poorly drafted. It's an extremely poor piece of legislation. That's why we are in this situation. The government has an opportunity. There were questions asked in question time where the senator representing the Prime Minister here in this chamber, Senator Wong, had the opportunity to rule it out. She could have ruled it out on the two sets of questions she was asked, but she did not.

We have a terrible situation operating in Western Australia, where there is great uncertainty. Unfortunately, it's undermining the very important issue of protecting significant Indigenous cultural sites. I was up in the Pilbara during the break that we have just had. I had a bit of business there, some work as a senator, but also had some time with my family. I went to some art sites, beautiful places that all Australians want to see protected. My family got to enjoy that. My family were welcomed by the Banyjima people, who proudly display these sites and allow people to go and visit them. Of course, this issue needs to be dealt with. Of course, Australians want to see these sites protected. But what we are seeing is that this legislation is undermining what all Australians want to see, which is the protection of cultural heritage. We are undermining it through poorly drafted legislation that this government here could rule out implementing across the country. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion from those opposite is nothing more than rank, smelly political opportunism. The motion that they have brought to the chamber today attacking the Commonwealth government for a policy position to implement in the future policies to protect Aboriginal heritage based on a scare campaign that those opposite have sought to amplify back in Western Australia is absolutely disgusting.

Let's go through some facts about the Western Australian changes. Before these new laws came into place, it was already unlawful to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage. That has not changed. What has to change is the upholding of that heritage.

You may well have a colonial house that has heritage values attached to it; that might well have some protection under laws that do not provide protection for Aboriginal culture and artifacts on smaller lots of land—smaller lots of land of less than 110 square metres. Think of it this way: colonial heritage has more protection on most lots of land in Western Australia than Indigenous heritage under this bill. In fact, the bill before the Western Australian parliament reduces the land that is governed by these Aboriginal protection laws.

Consultation on the act and the regulations took place over five years, with 1,100 people attending 90-plus workshops as part of the codesign process for the regulations. But here comes the cincher—after 220 submissions and hundreds of meetings: the National Farmers Federation and the pastoralists and graziers association were invited to attend these workshops, but they decided not to attend. I must say, one of their policy officers who came to the consultations said they thought the consultation process was exemplary.

In this context, Tony Buti, the minister in Western Australia, said: 'We've taken notice of the farmers and pastoralists who attended the workshops and give us their advice. The peak organisations may not have attended, or we were notified that they would not attend; however, we did listen to the farmers and pastoralists, and, as part of that feedback, we developed a tiered system that will allow for the better processing of applications for uses of land.'

As you well know—as you should know—pastoralists and farmers will not be impacted by most of this legislation. This is legislation that the state opposition did, in fact, vote for. So, while we are here today, you have called on me to not defend the state government, but the simple fact of the matter is I do. Sure, there are problems with the implementation, but the state opposition voted in favour of the legislation.

The federal opposition still has the gall to stand here and pretend that it stands up for Aboriginal heritage while it brings such motions to the floor. It is absolutely galling. When you contribute to undermining Aboriginal heritage protection by bringing debates like this to the chamber, you make it so much harder for people who are trying to stand up for their culture and their rights. So shame on you. Shame on those opposite for the motion that they've brought to the chamber here today.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a mess Labor has created in the west! Labor's new Aboriginal cultural heritage law was, no doubt, made with the best of intentions towards Indigenous people. The problem is that Labor didn't give a damn about anybody else. It's just another rushed, emotive policy. As a result, Western Australia's key industries are paralysed with uncertainty. Farmers can't farm. Miners can't mine. Builders can't build. Even councils can't plant trees for the environment. Even homeowners can't do things on their properties the rest of us take for granted all based on if it goes below the ground surface by 50 centimetres.

Of course, this is really about money rather than culture. Most of this land has been farmed, mined or lived on for over a century and has no connection to the Aboriginal culture. The West Australian newspaper last month reported the owner of a residential block in Exmouth has been quoted $20,000 for an Aboriginal heritage survey. The Daily Mail reported a man from Toodyay is facing a nine-month jail sentence and a $20,000 fine just for building a creek crossing to enable all-weather access to his property.

This is apparently because, according to local Aboriginal mythology, the creek is home to the Rainbow Serpent that might be scared away by the crossing. This is what will send a man to jail—mythology? How ridiculous we accept this in the 21st century. It's madness, and the Albanese government wants to expand it on a national scale.

There's only one silver lining to this stifling black tape in Western Australia: we're getting a preview of life in Australia with a Voice to Parliament. It's not looking pretty. It's divisive on race, it's destroying home owners property rights and it's holding industries critical to our economy hostage. One Nation will fight to rid Western Australia of this divisive, racist policy.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would be wrong if you thought this was the only example of Labor imperilling the future of regional Western Australia. You would be very, very wrong if you thought this was the only example. We have examples of Labor cutting regional road funding from the Kimberley through to the Pilbara and down to the Great Southern area of Western Australia. We have the very live issue of Labor now embarking on delivering its election commitment to ban live sheep exports. And now we have an example where WA Labor, supported by the federal Labor government, would want to rob Western Australians—not just in regional Western Australia but throughout the state—of their future prosperity.

The prosperity of Western Australia is built on two things: our mining and our agriculture. This Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act law and the poorly implemented regulations will go to the heart of destroying Western Australian wealth and future prosperity. Let me put that in context. I don't want to be unkind to the rest of the country, but the success of our country as a whole is largely built on the success of Western Australia and then, after that, Queensland.

You're quite right, Senator Scarr: watch out Queensland!

Let me put this in context for you. What we're talking about here are not little issues that may or may not cause someone harm. This has the potential to go to the core of Western Australian prosperity, undermining our mining industry and undermining our agriculture industry.

I'll take that interjection from Senator Cox. I would like to come back to the facts and figures about why Western Australia is so important for our national prosperity, but I think at this point, Senator Cox, it probably is timely to read into the Hansard what Senator Cox had to say and what the state Greens member of the upper house parliament had to say on 29 June about the WA Labor Party's Aboriginal cultural heritage laws. What did they say? Reported in the West Australia newspaper, they called them 'flawed'. They called them 'flawed'. The West Australian newspaper went on to say that Senator Cox, supported by the state upper house Greens member Mr Brad Pettitt, 'savaged the legislation for failing to do enough to protect Indigenous artefacts and sacred sites'.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'That's right,' Senator Cox says. Curiously you have the Greens and coalition senators in agreement that Labor's agricultural heritage laws are bad for Western Australia.

Senator Fatima Payman made an interesting observation. She talked about how the laws were a 'commonsense balance'. Unfortunately, balance is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and these laws are not balanced. We're all agreed that cultural heritage preservation is very important, both for Western Australia and nationally, but these rules, these new laws go to undermine that very sensible balance that has been at the heart of Western Australian success and prosperity.

Who is the person that should be—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Smith. Senator Cox, your point of order?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't be misquoted by Senator Smith. My comment was actually that we need a balance, so I'd like the Hansard to reflect that, please.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is the one person who should feel most aggrieved about where Western Australia's cultural heritage laws are up to? That one person is the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ben Wyatt. When the draft laws were prepared back in 2020, he said: 'I am confident that we have a path forward to introduce historic reform that reflects modern values.' That's what Mr Ben Wyatt had to say—the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who was also the state Treasurer, who is now a board member of Rio—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Woodside!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Woodside. He's done very well for himself; congratulations, Mr Wyatt. He would feel most aggrieved, because his comments about how these laws would be historic and would lead to modern values—completely wrong. These laws have been introduced in a way that was unplanned, unprepared— (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for discussion has expired.