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

I move:

That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Kings Plains) Declaration 2024, made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, be disallowed [F2024L00999].

In doing so, I think it's important to reflect on what's been happening in this debate around this very significant decision that was made by Ms Plibersek, the minister for the environment. What concerns me most about this debate, though, is the fact that the government seek to minimise what's happened here. They seek to pretend it's like a business-as-usual decision and just something that would happen any other day of the week, sweeping away the seriousness and the far-reaching consequences of what this decision actually means for the so many people that have been impacted by this decision, particularly in regional communities like Orange and its surrounds—

and particularly for the community of Blayney, as Senator Cadell points out. This is anything but business as usual—far from it. It's not just a small hiccup for the proponents of a project. It's not just something that we can do without, pretend it never happened and move on. It's not easily fixed up either, contrary to the claims that were made in question time today by the minister representing Ms Plibersek in this place, Minister McAllister. There is the idea that we can just turn around, resubmit applications and wave a magic wand, and would the proponents of this billion-dollar goldmine in Blayney, creating 800 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, empowering local communities, including Indigenous communities, not just pop up tomorrow if they were to go back down to the offices of the department of environment and have another meeting! If this government thinks that this is business as usual and is an acceptable approach to take—that this is something good governments do—then we are in more trouble in this country than we realise.

Here are some of the facts relevant to what we're talking about here. It wasn't just some small project in the middle of nowhere that had no impact on anyone. It was, in fact, a significant project and a massive investment in a community that needs it. As I say, there were 800 jobs for Blayney and Orange and the people of that community, and, of course, there were all the contractor jobs that go with that. There was the vote of confidence that would be felt in that community as a result of that investment getting up. There was the billion dollars in construction costs injected into the economy. And, as I've mentioned already, there were those hundreds of millions of dollars that would go into revenue from royalties in the state of New South Wales on the way through.

I've mentioned the direct impacts, but the biggest impact, of course, is the one that relates to certainty—sovereign risk. The fact is that a proponent of a project will engage with government, go through all the processes, comply with every request, go through every test, jump through every hoop and over every hurdle, and then, at the end of this protracted process of near on five years, have a decision like this made to have their proposal knocked on the head at the 11th hour. I'll go to the detail of some of the things that the proponents have gone through to get to the stage they have. I know that there was a long period of engagement through that, but the decision was made right at the end and, of course, after a number of approvals had been given.

Potential investors are watching this. I spent the last week in Western Australia talking to, amongst other groups, representatives of the mining community. Many of them are multinationals, and they're making decisions about where they invest their money. Do they come here to do business, create jobs and provide royalties so we can pay for things like child care, hospitals, schools, roads and the things we need to make our country a great and livable country? They're considering whether they invest here or go somewhere else where they will get a certain outcome, where sovereign risk isn't as much of an issue. For those of us who get paid every fortnight no matter what, including the people that made the decision here, perhaps that doesn't matter. It certainly worries me. Those people who work in industries like mining and the businesses that depend on it, in the small communities that it is based in, like Blayney, are very worried about it.

Why did we get this outcome? Why did we arrive at this outcome, especially when, as we know, as is on public record, the McPhillamys goldmine, proposed by Regis Resources, had full state and environmental approvals—both state and federal? It is not an easy task to attain that level of approval. We know so many projects that fall foul of any of the processes that are required of them at the state, territory or Commonwealth level. This project had received all its approvals. It had been through the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission, had worked through any issues it needed to address and had received its full approval. It had gone through the assessments of the EPBC Act at the Commonwealth level and had been given the tick. That's a pretty good sign that this project was on solid ground.

If you look at comments made by groups like the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the land council that is recognised at law as the one with authority to speak on behalf of country, it said—and this is an Indigenous representative group—that the proposed development in relation to the McPhillamys mine 'would not impact any known sites or artefacts of high significance':

It is a matter of concern to OLALC that a range of claims have been made—

and we'll come to those claims in a moment—

on this issue, by people and organisations lacking the experience, expertise and authority to hold themselves out as authorities on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in order to push other agendas.

Rather damning from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council in relation to the project before us and why this happened.

The minister, in responding to all the concerns that have been raised, the outrage in the community, the questions we've rightly asked in this place—which have not been answered, I might add, to any level of satisfaction. We've had changing answers provided, and changing reasons. It started out with the cultural heritage concerns, which we can see have clearly been debunked there. It then moved to other environmental considerations, like the destruction of the headwaters of the Belubula River—which is rather unusual given we're talking about a cultural heritage assessment, not environmental, and given they already had EPBC Act and state approval; I'm not quite sure how the minister, in referring to these environmental considerations, was in any way relevant to the question before her—and the impacts on the beekeeping sector and goat farmers in the local community as well. There were a range of answers given but no statement of reasons, not one—something the minister is supposed to provide to both the proponent and those who are interested in the process. We haven't seen that yet. I don't know; maybe the government will table that today and we can all go home happy and fulfilled in our pursuit of information around why this terrible decision was reached.

Minister Plibersek overruled her handpicked adviser, who was engaged to provide advice under the section 10 application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—someone who ought to know, and who went away and did the work and determined that the application should not be upheld. The minister overruled that recommendation from her expert adviser. She disagrees with the Independent Planning Commission in New South Wales; with the group of people who have gone through copious amounts of work and determined, on both environmental planning and cultural issues, that the mine and its tailings dam were okay to go; with the Labor Premier, Mr Minns, who said this was the wrong decision; and with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council.

I'm not quite sure how all of these groups and individuals got it so wrong and the minister was right. And because we don't have a statement of reasons—all we have are these various vague responses—we don't know how this minister reached this conclusion, and I do believe that is an abrogation of duty.

The minister chose not to come to Orange to talk to the community. She was invited. She would have had the opportunity to explain her decision to those in attendance at the Bush Summit last Thursday, or indeed anyone else in the community of Blayney or Orange. But the minister chose not to come, chose not to provide answers or give an explanation. That community deserves those answers. This country deserves answers about the decision-making process this minister has gone through.

We have an absence of a statement of reasons, so I wonder how this Senate, anyone in this chamber, could back this decision-making process and not support this disallowance without the full facts. The statement of reasons is necessary for us to understand exactly why the minister's decision was right. We're a house of review. We shouldn't be denying that community economic advantage and opportunity without a justification. You only need to talk to locals like Tanya Cassel, the butcher from Blayney, who said:

We paid more than what we would have liked to—

this is in relation to setting up their business in Blayney—

but we knew the mine was setting up soon, and thought lots of business would come along with that … The mine was … going to be fundamental for town growth and employment.

Sharon Kearney, the local newsagent, said: 'The town needs this industry to keep us moving forward.' She added:

As a small business we need to be able to survive and keep going—putting industry and infrastructure into the town is what is going to make it grow.

But that is not going to happen now; that will not be happening. This town, that community, this state, our country has been denied all of that because of Minister Plibersek's decision, which she has been unable to back in yet.

I want to refer to two pieces of correspondence, because we are operating in a void at the moment. One is a letter that I gather was provided to a number of senators. It's from the CEO of Regis Resources, Mr Jim Beyer. In his letter he goes through the history of this project, and I want to take a little bit of time to go through that. He said, 'This decision'—the one we are talking about here—'has ceased progress on the project indefinitely and caused uncertainty within the community and our wider mining sector about the viability of investment in Australian mining.' I think he'd know a thing or two about that.

'As part of the application process over a number of years, more than 1,700 pages of expert reports, legal summaries, representations were submitted by Regis Resources, including 15 expert specialist heritage reports. Regis also engaged six separate expert archaeologists and anthropologists through the assessment process as part of the section 10 application.' This rather puts paid to the claim that Minister Plibersek makes, which is the company was seeking the cheapest, easiest and most convenient site for their tailings dam—quite outrageous!

'Additionally, since 2016, Regis actively engaged and consulted with 13 registered Aboriginal parties, including the section 10 applicant.' Then he goes through the process that he engaged in and makes the point that the final decision was made by Minister Plibersek on an application that bore no resemblance to the original claim, highlighting how difficult this process has been. 'Additionally, as part of the section 10 process, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council submission clearly indicated that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance of the Belubula River, it's headwaters and springs.'

He also makes the point: 'Minimum cost was not the primary selection criteria at any time. The construction methodology chosen for the site is downstream and is one of the most expensive, and also one of the safest. To find an alternative site for this facility, the tailings dam, could take anywhere from five to 10 years.' These are some of the facts missing from the answers provided from government and in public commentary from the government about this terrible decision. 'Should the minister have harboured other environmental concerns in relation to the project, such as downstream water quality or destroying the river, as has been cited in various media commentary since the decision, one might question why the minister had already herself approved the project on environmental grounds through the EPBC Act.'

There you have it; some facts. I hope that weighs on people's minds as they make a decision on this motion. But let's see what Mr Roy Ah-See, a Wiradjuri elder, said about this.

He had the guts to turn up to Orange and talk to the community about what was going on there. His letter to Minister Plibersek, which was published in part in the Australian over the weekend, says:

You and your advisors completely rejected their evidence and have disrespected these highly regard Wiradjuri elders. Your advisers never even spoke with them. This is disgraceful. It's obvious your minds were made up.

The letter goes on: 'You and your advisers have refused to accept the OLALC authority to promote and protect Aboriginal culture and heritage under section 52(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. In your recent interview on ABC morning news, you stated that you and your advisers spoke to "the most appropriate group" in this matter, and therefore you've systematically made the 121 Local Aboriginal Land Councils, which make up the land rights network, irrelevant.' He questions what this does to Indigenous control over Aboriginal land.

Then he goes on to say, as he did in Orange: 'At the end of the day, what has happened here should be concerning for industry and for other sectors but, more importantly, for the structure of Local Aboriginal Land Councils. Here we've got a minister who's knocking back a million-dollar mine that would create economic empowerment for my people. The green attitude is that all our land should be locked up for environmental national parks, and that wasn't the intent of the New South Wales land rights legislation.' Around the grounds, everyone is criticising the minister's decision and her inability to back it in. Senators need to support this disallowance and do the right thing by anyone concerned.

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

What the actual flip is this disallowance supposed to do? I know Senator Duniam doesn't live here on the mainland with the rest of us, but it is shameful, actually, that we have the coalition standing up here on this disallowance motion in relation to a government decision about the headwaters of this wonderful, wonderful place at Belabula—in the headways of that river, in fact. It's another example of how big money in this country thinks it can bully and silence First Nations people's voices, and it's atrocious.

It is absolutely atrocious that traditional owners met with us today to talk us through the six times that the consultation was put out for this particular process. In the last few weeks, those traditional owners have been bullied and personally attacked. Their motives around why they're protecting country have been questioned. It causes extreme and great distress. They are the custodians of this country, of that land and of those waterways. It causes them great distress, because it is an attack on their reputation, cultural knowledge and ability to protect that country by people who think that they can go in there and just ram through an objection to all of that based on the fact that you want to make money off it. It is ridiculous!

And how disrespectful to think that these people would make this up. I mean, you stand up here in this place and say people lying. What benefit do you think that they get to lie about this—to put themselves through the emotional stress and economic distress? They have had to not work for weeks on end while they are fighting to protect their country and their water. They have blocked the construction of the tailings dam because of the precious cultural heritage connection that they have to this place. It's not just about the Dreaming story; it's about the creation story that exists in there. It is about the artefacts that have been found in that place. It is about the totemic system and the biodiversity that exist here. It is not the government blocking the McPhillamys gold mine. So let's clear up that fact to start with.

The traditional owners' application was supported by some of those archaeological surveys. In every part of this country—in every corner of it—there is an archaeological, cultural heritage survey that happens under the law.

That was actually done by Regis Resources for McPhillamys gold mine. It found that there was an extensive collection of archaeological sites that were identified and recorded. There are 19 artefacts scatters, 18 isolated finds and one open artefact site which were mapped. The outcome of that survey is publicly available. So, contrary to what Senator Duniam has said in this place tonight, they are publicly available. You can all see those.

In the plains region this is a very significant area. It's about the three brothers' dreaming story, and it's well known in this region. There are songlines that run through this area, so the tangible and intangible cultural heritage is so important. This was previously recognised by the coalition's own minister, former minister Ley from the other place, in the section 10 declaration back in 2021 to protect the desecration of this proposed site from a go-kart track.

The elders that I met with today have not just jumped up as has been assumed. What Senator Duniam has brought to this place is that they just jumped up one day and said: 'We'd like to stop a gold mine. We'd like to stop it from going ahead. We don't want anyone to muck it up. We will, in fact, lock up the lands.' That's what Senator Duniam has said, which is absolutely untrue. This is untrue because these dreaming stories are part of that connection that First Nations people have to these cultural places, and the Wiradjuri people of this region, in particular, know of the stories of the three brothers dreaming.

The water that runs through this area, which has a matriarchal—a women's—connection to this place, is so important. There are strong connections to the waterways in this area. By overturning this decision, the government, in fact, sought to protect these waterways, because part of that living being of water that they are looking to protect is part of their identity and poisoning that through putting a gold mine close by is poisoning their spiritual connection to their culture. As someone who has lived in the Goldfields area of Western Australia, I can very much vouch for the mines getting bigger and bigger as their profits do and poisoning the waters in and across the northern Goldfields. As people continue to pillage our country, it has such a significant impact on our waterways.

If miners want to continue to do this in this country, they need to conduct their operations through free, prior and informed consent. We know from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into Juukan Gorge in the A way forward report that we absolutely need free, prior and informed consent. This government accepted the majority of those recommendations, and I had the pleasure of serving on that committee We absolutely need standalone cultural heritage, which this government committed to at the last election. We're still waiting to see that draft legislation. But I am pleased that Minister Plibersek from the other place has taken the stance as the federal minister for the environment to absolutely do her job under section 10 and make sure that she heard the elders, the traditional people, the custodians of this area to look after the cultural heritage that needed to be protected under this. In this instance, the government has absolutely done their job, and I would love to see more and more instances where section 10 is utilised to protect country.

Nobody has been blindsided in this instance. Nobody has been led down the garden path. This is not causing uncertainty. This is about protecting country. Every day we stand in this place and talk about acknowledging country. Know that this was walked upon. These are ancient lands. There are ceremonial grounds. There are artefacts. There are people's bones under where you walk and where you put your buildings and drive your cars in this country.

The fact that a goldmine can't go ahead and we hear 'boohoo' in this disallowance is disgraceful. This decision simply means that the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Plibersek, has chosen in this instance to protect a very culturally significant site.

What we know is that goldmining has a significant impact on First Peoples' protection of their country. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is so important. Australia is a signatory to that, and we're still waiting, 10 months later, to hear the government's response to the inquiry into it. I look forward to hearing what the formal mechanisms are in which we tell the truth. Well, this is truth-telling. In New South Wales this group of custodians have led truth-telling, and the framework for truth-telling, in their part of the country, and we should applaud that. We should not be thinking about the absolute mess that will be left behind from this goldmining, and the fact that the tailings dam just happens to be where there's a cultural heritage site. Do you know what? Find another location. If you are so damned intent on ruining the environment, don't put it in a culturally significant place; find somewhere else to do it.

As for the reference to jobs, what we know in Australia—what I know through my research as the spokesperson for resources—is that in this country we actually employ more people in nursing and in hospitality than we do in mining. So people need to stop saying that. I'm someone who comes from a state that is very rich in mining, but it's not the be-all and end-all. We need to look after those workers but we also need to look after the First Nations people who live in those towns, because they actually had their own culture before FIFO came along, and we're not doing that.

I congratulate this government. I congratulate the minister for the environment on the decision she made. It is the right choice to make at this time, and absolutely we need more decisions like it.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this disallowance motion. I listened intently to what Senator Cox had to say. I understand that she wants us to listen to the First Nations people of our country, and I totally accept that. So why can't we listen to the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who actually, under New South Wales legislation, are the responsible Aboriginal land council for this area and speak on behalf of country in Blayney.

This is why people struggle with these concepts. At the end of the day, we are told we've got to listen to First Nations voices, but which First Nations voice is the voice we have to rely on?

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The one that wants to stop the mine.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, in this instance it's the one that wants to stop the mine. This isn't the first time we have seen Indigenous issues and cultural groups being used by environmental activists to try to stop development. We've seen it before. Thirty years ago we saw the Hindmarsh Island secret women's business. We found that that was false, and look at the development that has occurred in that area—and the jobs—ever since that was overturned. Just last year we saw the court finding that Santos's Barossa Gas Project could proceed because the cultural claims being put against the project were false and had actually been fed to the traditional owners by activists. And now, in another example just this year, Woodside, after a decade of working with traditional owners for their Burrup gas exploration project, have found that they're dealing with a previously unknown whale songline.

When you are working with the traditional owners you are working with the registered parties. How can you keep investing in a country when an indeterminate number of voices can come forward with applications? As my colleague Senator Duniam said before, during this process to get this mine over the line, since 2016 there has been active engagement with over 13 registered Aboriginal parties. There was extensive work done to look at the environmental impact of this proposed mine and to look at the Aboriginal cultural heritage impact. There were assessments done—they had archaeologists, anthropologists and environmental scientists have a look at it, and the departmental people, as Senator Duniam said before, all came to assess the site. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council worked with Regis Resources since 2016 to work through the concerns that they had and to develop Aboriginal management plans to ensure that the project could proceed, taking them in mind and making sure that Aboriginal concerns were addressed. But all of that means nothing.

Since the section 10 application was lodged in October 2020, some four years after the first application process was commenced by Regis Resources, four years after they had been working with the 13 registered Aboriginal parties, the assessments have continued. It was assessed by the New South Wales government and recommended for approval in 2022, and then it went to the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission, who recommended its approval in March 2023. We have already heard that the minister's own assessor under the section 10 application also recommended that it be put forward for approval.

Yet we have the minister coming out and saying that she had accepted the advice of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation, which she could not disclose due to its cultural sensitivity, which does not reflect the transparency we were promised by this government. Then, after the initial backlash, including from other Wiradjuri people, about her decision to accept that advice, she then tried to also justify it with her claims that you can't put a tailings dam on the headwaters of the Belubula River. That is despite her own department giving it environmental approval, which would indicate that there were no concerns about the impact on the flows of the Belubula River, and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority giving it a stamp of approval, indicating that it didn't have any concerns. On what grounds is she blocking this tailings dam? Is it, as she initially claimed and as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act requires, on cultural grounds? Or is it on environmental grounds, which was her second claim, about protecting the flows and the waters of the Belubula River?

After considerable backlash and questions, she has also come out to say, 'I also listened to downstream landholders, including the goatkeepers and the beekeepers.'

As a farmer myself, I have the utmost respect for the concerns of landholders, but you would have thought that that would have come out in the environmental and planning assessment processes that had been going on for seven years. Has she blocked this tailings dam on cultural grounds? Has she blocked this dam on environmental grounds? Or has she blocked this dam on planning and community grounds? Unless she releases her statement of reasons, we will never know. Is that really good government? As Senator Duniam said, we are the house of review. It is incumbent on us in this place to scrutinise decisions of government. How can we do that when we aren't provided the information?

This has other implications. We know that in Australia the timeline to get approval to do anything is stretching out beyond the capacity of many proponents to participate in and fund it. This approval process had gone on for seven years. That is seven years of investment, investigation and preparation—to then be knocked on the head based on claims that no-one can refute because no-one has actually seen them. That is not due process. This brings reputational damage to our nation. Do you think investors are going to be willing to undertake that level of investment?

In the case of Regis Resources, it cost almost $200 million to get all the assessment criteria and protocol met. And then it was turned on its head and the minister said, 'Well, they should just find another location for the tailings dam.' Well, let's consider 'another location', because there are several factors here. This freehold property that is now under a cultural heritage protection order has been a freehold property for 200 years, during which time it has been actively farmed. It's had tractors driving over it. It's had clearing exercises on it. It's had animals grazing on it. It's been actively farmed for 200 years. Now, 400 hectares of that freehold property is excluded for use by this declaration. Of the remaining area of this freehold property that is owned by Regis Resources, most of the sites have already been identified for a purpose of the mine. That includes ore body, waste rock emplacement, processing infrastructure and the mine itself.

There's the idea that they can go out, survey and get engineering reports for a new site which has not been previously investigated. They did look at other sites during the early stages of the design process. There were four separate areas with a combined potential of 30 options. They were all rigorously assessed, and the company identified that chosen site as being the safest, with the least environmental impacts and the best engineering sustainability. But the minister says, 'Oh, they can go and find another site.' At what cost? And how long will it take to assess another site? Will it be another five to seven years?

No company is going to do that. And then there is no guarantee that another section 10 application won't be made over the next site. So it is absolutely farcical for the minister to try and claim that a new site can miraculously be found for the tailings dam and the mine can proceed and go ahead. Even with the minister saying she would help facilitate a fast-tracking, even with the New South Wales state government, to their credit, saying that they would seek to fast-track, it is not a simple exercise to fast-track these applications when you need to go back to the 13 registered Aboriginal participants and double-check with them. You need to go through the environmental impact assessment again. You need to go through the planning commission assessment again and you need to lodge it through the federal processes.

We will absolutely oppose this declaration without the full statement and without transparency as to exactly why she has decided to block this tailings dam. And she did know. She has correspondence that said that, should the tailings dam be blocked, the project would not proceed. The Prime Minister had correspondence to that end. Knowing that the process can't proceed, the minister has accepted the advice of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. From my experience dealing with the minister for water, I am very heartened that she has at least listened to someone, because as the minister for water she refuses to meet with stakeholders. I dearly hope she actually did meet with members of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation and did not just make this assessment based on her verbal representations.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very rare that the Labor government does something good or worthwhile or strong enough for the environment. In fact, time and time again, they do the exact opposite. They refuse to fix broken environmental laws. They refuse to end native forest logging. In the middle of a climate crisis, they are approving coal and gas projects like there's no tomorrow. They are thinking of watering down their already weak proposal for a national EPA. They are killing the environment, and it is death by a thousand cuts.

But the declaration to preserve and protect an area which comprises parts of the Belubula River, its headwaters and its springs at Kings Plains near Blayney in my home state of New South Wales as a significant Aboriginal area is that rare occasion. It's a good decision. When they do actually do something to protect the environment, land, water and, most importantly, Aboriginal and cultural heritage, the Greens will support it.

We will be opposing this disgraceful disallowance because already, in the more than 200 years of colonisation, too much Aboriginal heritage has been destroyed and desecrated. Too much land and water has already been polluted and plundered. Every single bit of Aboriginal heritage must be protected and preserved.

The proposed McPhillamys goldmine site in Kings Plains is in the Central West of New South Wales and threatens the cultural heritage of the Wiradjuri people who are the sovereign owners of that area. Their elders have been fighting rightly to defend their culture and heritage. Wiradjuri elders that I met today have told us that the water from the springs, which are at risk, is sacred. They told us the association of the place with Dreaming stories. They told us of the blue-banded bee, and they told us of their songlines. They have told us about the artefacts that are there and how each piece of evidence scaffolds the other. They told us they had no agenda but to simply protect country and protect their stories, which are written into the landscape.

Their stories have been buried by colonisation. These stories must be heard. They must be brought into the limelight. They must persevere for generations to come.

After pushing hard, Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation and elders have finally been successful, after years, in getting the government to issue a protection declaration. But now they are, shamefully, being harassed, threatened and slandered, and the coalition, moving this disgraceful disallowance motion today, is feeding right into those attacks. So, shame on you. First Nations people have for millennia protected and cared for land, water and culture, which we know have been destroyed since colonisation.

Now the coalition wants to undo one of the few things the Labor government have done on the environment. Well, we're not going to let you do that. We know you are the mouthpieces of the dirty mining lobby and their mega profits, because some of those profits come back into the party coffers. We know you don't care about First Nations heritage and you don't care about the environment. But we do, because we listen to and believe First Nations people when they tell us a site has spiritual importance. When they tell us that, it does—that's it. We respect them when they say, 'We are country, and country is us.' We are with them when Aunty Leanna says: 'It affects your family, your livelihood. It consumes every corner of your world. Everything we do, we do for the love of country. We've got nothing to gain from this. We just want it left the way it is, sitting in country forever.' Thank you, Aunty Leanna. First Nations culture and heritage should sit in country forever.

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

This is a very serious issue, and I say that those on this side come to this with a deep seriousness, because we have looked at the issues and we have looked at the evidence before us. And, quite frankly, where a government is making a decision on the basis of a secret statement of reasons, something has gone very wrong in this country; something has gone very wrong with the decision-making process. And it's not surprising that you see the Greens and Labor on a unity ticket when it comes to stopping this development—not surprising at all. But all Australians who are listening to this debate must understand that it's simply not acceptable in this country to make decisions based on a secret set of reasons. If the minister is confident in her reasons, then publish the statement. If the minister feels that Australians will support the decision, publish the statement.

But the fact is—and quite contrary to what we've heard from some of those opposite in the debate here today—that there is a significant difference of opinion among the Aboriginal representative groups. In fact, the largest Aboriginal representative group—the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, which is the official representative body in this area—clearly indicated in its submission to the section 10 process that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance on the Belubula River.

You can't just say that this is a one-sided argument where new information has been revealed secretly to the minister that, therefore, should stop a project dead in its tracks. That is what this has done, make no mistake.

When Minister Plibersek says, 'Oh, there are other options,' the company involved, Regis, a company headquartered in my home state of Western Australia, has made it very clear that the site proposed, the site accepted by all the regulators—including the federal regulator, the minister's own department, that had approved this under the EPBC Act—was the location for the tailings dam that made the most sense in terms of the economics of the project. That is important, I say to those opposite: the economics of a project are important. For projects that deliver jobs, that deliver tax revenue and that deliver royalties to state governments, the economics are important. But it didn't just look at the economics of the decision; it looked at the environment. It looked at the Aboriginal heritage aspects of the decision. It got feedback from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. It went through a state process. It went through a federal process. Seven years, $193 million spent, future jobs in a regional community—all that can be tossed aside by this minister, who will not even reveal her decision-making process.

The statement of reasons remains a secret. This is not acceptable in this country. It is not acceptable that secret decisions are made that don't just affect a single company—in this case, it's a goldmining company based out of my home state of Western Australia—but affect every superannuation holder in Australia who happens to have shares in that company. The decision affects the local community in terms of future development. It affects the ability of companies to make decisions based on having a timely process in which they can understand the rules. If it's derailed at the last moment by a secret decision, where the minister can't even be clear in her public pronouncements about what the basis of that decision was—was it actually Aboriginal cultural heritage? Was it about environmental concerns? Was it about it being the headwaters of a river? The minister has been extraordinarily unclear. The story has been changing on an almost daily basis, and the statement of reasons remains secret. This might be the way the Labor Party governs, but it cannot be the way Australia is governed.

Coming from a resource rich state in Western Australia, the ability for project proponents to undertake assessments and turn the shovel on projects in a timely way is absolutely vital. We've heard across the board how these timelines are stretching out to the point of ludicrousness. In this case, you have a seven-year project timeline. I've talked to many companies in Western Australia where the project timelines have stretched out 10 years, 12 years, 15 years—

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

With more to come if they don't fix it!

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

With more to come—I'll take that interjection from the Greens. You can also see the EDO's fingerprints all over this; that is, the Environmental Defenders Office, funded by those opposite, which has been—

An honourable senator interjecting

It's an insult! They've got a track record. We had a Federal Court judge severely criticise the lawyer from the EDO in the Barossa case for coaching witnesses on Aboriginal heritage matters.

You know this, and you have had a Federal Court justice reveal that an expert witness in that case lied under oath to the Indigenous opponents of that particular project.

It's not like this is a brand-new, unique issue. We've seen this before. Those opposite may deny it, but I think the EDO's fingerprints are all over this. They have looked for an avenue to try to block this project, and we will see in the fullness of time what the truth of this—

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

Will we?

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

Well, I hope we will. You say, 'Will we?' but it's up to the minister and the government to reveal the statement of reasons as to what the basis for this decision actually was. Until we see that statement of reasons, quite frankly, this looks arbitrary. It looks capricious and it looks as though it's a Labor-Greens decision to block an extraordinary project for the future of Australia—for jobs, revenue for the state government and revenue for the federal government. It's vital for the future of this great country that we deal with these issues.

We saw in my home state of Western Australia the absolute debacle that was the Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. The handling of that by the state Labor government caused absolute chaos and confusion for months, to the point where they had to repeal their own act. Guess what happened when they did that? The Labor Party, as the previous speaker said, had promised standalone Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. Where has it disappeared to? It has disappeared because they know that the chaos and confusion that was caused by the Western Australian state act will be replicated federally if they pull it out of the bottom drawer. They're too frightened to reveal what they actually believe, and that's why this decision is also being kept secret.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rise to contribute to this debate and associate myself with the comments made by my fellow Greens colleagues. Sitting here listening to the level of debate on this issue, you'd think this mob had totally forgotten what happened at Juukan Gorge. You'd think they'd absolutely forgotten. They don't care about it. We have a history in this country of pretending to listen while totally ignoring the will, the rights, the interests and the views of Indigenous communities and then, when the government is called to account and the companies in charge do the wrong thing, they all wring their hands and say, 'Oh! Sorry, sorry, sorry! We won't do it again.'

Here we have the coalition, led by the National Party in NSW, whipping up frenzy because we need some proper protections for an area that is clearly culturally significant to the local Indigenous population, the traditional owners in that area. Let's point out that the minister hasn't said that this gold mine can't happen. This tailings dam that was proposed to be right smack-bang in the middle of a culturally significant waterway shouldn't happen, so find somewhere else for it.

The absolute outrage and hysteria that come from the coalition, fed by the Murdoch press, are ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous. Honestly! You'd think these people were in Trump's America. They've got no original ideas. They pull out every trope they can find. When it means beating up on some local Aboriginal people, they do it, and they get their local Murdoch rag to pile on, too. This has nothing to do with the integrity of law in this country, with protecting the environment from this side or with proper process. This is about hysteria, race-baiting, dog whistling and their anti-environment agenda. That's all it is. They've got nothing else going for them, this mob—nothing.

There have been six rounds of consultation in relation to this issue. The minister has made a decision based on listening to that advice, hearing from the experts and acknowledging that there is intangible cultural significance held in these sites, in this particular area. And this mob, so blinded by their own ignorance, want to say, 'Oh, it's all secret.' It's not secret just because you don't understand it. That doesn't make it secret, mate. Seriously! How about a little bit of intelligence coming from that side over there!

I mean, I understand that the coalition in New South Wales are in total disarray. They can't even get their bloody applications for a local council in on time. It is like the Hunger Games in the New South Wales coalition right now, and the National Party are chomping at the bit. They need some red meat for the base. And this is what they choose—to beat up on the local Aboriginal people in this area, their deeply held views and the cultural significance of this area and this site. What a disgrace! Come in here and have a proper discussion about how we have proposals for gold mines without wrecking the environment and trashing cultural heritage. You can do it, actually. It's been done in other places. You can do it. But you're too lazy. You don't actually care about this particular proposal. All you want is the flogging and the witch-hunt. All you're interested in is the race-baiting.

This is just one example of what is to come from a Dutton government. It'll be issue after issue after issue. None of these ideas are original. They're the same old debates and the same old tropes. Peter Dutton thinks he's Australia's Trump, and he's proud of it. Barnaby Joyce is sitting there laughing and carrying on, clapping and cheering. He thinks he's bloody JD Vance! You're not, mate. Honestly! The level of ignorance from the coalition on this issue is gobsmacking but not surprising. You've learnt nothing from Juukan Gorge. You've learnt nothing from the years of trashing cultural heritage left, right and centre in this country.

Indigenous communities deserve to have their voices heard, listened to and given some damn respect, not hand-wringing afterwards. It happens every single time traditional owners stand up for their place, their country, which has important cultural significance to them, and try to protect their local environment. They get torn down, used, humiliated and attacked. If it's not coming from the Leader of the Opposition or the National Party, it's coming directly from the bozos at the Murdoch press. It's all they do. It's the only trick in the book. Then, after it all happens—after the project goes ahead and the sacred sites are ruined—years later comes the apology: 'Oh, sorry. We wish we'd known.' Open your ears! Open your eyes! Learn a thing or two!

This disallowance motion is a disgrace. It should be voted down and it will be, because most people in this chamber can see it for what it is.

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this disallowance motion because what's at issue here are the local Indigenous community and whether their voices have been heard and an important project that would be of immense benefit to the community.

The last-minute intervention in August by the Minister for the Environment and Water, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, goes against the advice of the very people she's purporting to protect—that is, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the recognised representative body of the local Wiradjuri people. They consider the claims of cultural heritage and songlines to be baseless and they are the organisation that should are been consulted and listened to by the minister.

What this means is that the Blayney goldmine, a project worth about a billion dollars in the New South Wales Central West, will not be able to go ahead, meaning there are no jobs for the region. Regis, the company concerned, disputes the minister's suggestion that there are alternative sites for the tailings dam, saying it would take another five to 10 years to find a viable site, which is simply not commercially viable. And it's a terrible decision for investors and for future resource projects. If you're a commercial entity, why would you explore, why would you develop plans and why would you bother consulting with the local Indigenous community and stakeholders if you were to find at the end of it all, a minute to midnight, that the minister could overturn your decision with one of these section 10 determinations? Incidentally, this one is very scant on the reasons that the intervention was issued.

I want to read to the chamber some of what the local Aboriginal land council, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, have said about this decision. They've described the claims on which the minister made her determination as 'baseless', saying: 'You have made baseless claims now the accepted truth.' They go on to say they are respectfully requesting a review of the section 10 evidence through proper consultation, and they demand to be consulted and listened to. They dispute that the claims which formed the basis of the section 10 application for cultural heritage had any basis whatsoever. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council were consulted extensively throughout this process and they made clear that, although in the past they had been opposed to the project, they had come to support it.

If you look at the New South Wales government's Independent Planning Commission report on this project, you see that they provided conditional approval of the project in March 2023. That was after a three-member commission panel had taken over 1,000 public submissions, held a public hearing and consulted closely with local stakeholders, including the local Aboriginal landholding group.

The commission's findings, as announced in March 2023, are:

"The Commission finds that on balance, the Project is in the public interest" and that the "application is consistent with the Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979" …

The Commission noted the strategic benefits of the gold mine in "produc[ing] a significant mineral resource to meet the growing demand for raw metals", finding that "the positive impacts resulting from the Project—including employment, training, investment and additional economic activity—will outweigh the negative impacts".

The Commission acknowledged concerns raised by stakeholders about social and amenity impacts including visual, air quality, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts on water resources, Aboriginal cultural heritage … The Commission found that these impacts could be effectively avoided, minimised or offset through the strict conditions of consent imposed by the Commission.

The New South Wales planning panel, under their own environmental protection act, has approved this project, and the local landholders and the Aboriginal land council, the body which is the recognised representative body of the local Wiradjuri people, consider the project to be worthwhile and valid and do not object to it; yet the minister, acting on the advice, seemingly, of another group—a dissident group or an alternative group; however you prefer to phrase it—has prioritised their views and their statement of evidence over that of the legally constituted and legitimate authority here.

This is a terrible decision on any respect. It will not only have an implication for that local community in Orange, not only for the local Orange Aboriginal land council, but it will have a chilling effect on resource projects across the country. Despite the best efforts of resource companies and extraction companies to consult with local stakeholders, to get local Indigenous groups on board, to protect cultural heritage, to preserve cultural heritage, to re-engineer their projects and plans for the site depending on the input of these groups, they might well find that, having gone through quite an exhaustive process over many years, having done the right thing, having spoken to the correct legally constituted groups, having developed environmental protection and mitigation plans and strategies to make sure local cultural heritage is preserved, at one minute to midnight, when they're in their final capital raise for this project, the environment minister is contacted by another group that purports to represent the area or purports to have identified site of cultural significance and, without testing those claims, without interrogating those claims, but simply accepting them at face value, the minister might issue a section 10 determination, which will undoubtedly frustrate that project, just as it frustrated the Blayney goldmine.

The consequential effect is that it will have a chilling effect on investment in Australia, and it will raise the legitimate concerns of sovereign risk in Australia. What investors value in Australia is predictability of decision-making, certainty of decision-making and a well-understood and well-documented process. They respect our environmental laws. We are free to write them as we wish, and we as the parliament are free to change the laws as we wish. They have a legitimate expectation that, once those laws and frameworks are put in place and the requisite consultation is undertaken, they can depend upon decisions being taken in a predictable manner. That has not happened in this instance, and it has been manifestly clear in the way the minister has handled this.

The minister has failed to provide a statement of reasons and she has been contradicted by her own leader, the Prime Minister, and by the New South Wales Premier, both of whom say they would like to see the project proceed. The minister has hidden from scrutiny, refused to disclose reasons and seemingly refused to discuss the issue despite entreaties with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who have described the claims on which she bases this determination as baseless. She's hiding from scrutiny on this issue because I think she knows the decision that has been made is a terrible one with consequences that go beyond her particular portfolio and to the heart of Australia's resource industries.

In the absence of a more compelling and detailed statement of reasons from the minister, I don't think the Senate can have any choice but to support this disallowance motion and seek for the minister or her representative in this chamber to provide a detailed and compelling statements of reasons as to why she didn't listen to the local Indigenous landholding group and why she decided, on the basis of another group, to disregard the work that had been done, disregard the decision of the New South Wales independent planning panel, disregard the views of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and disregard the views of any number of local stakeholders and prevent this project.

In the absence of that compelling reason, we should be supporting this disallowance motion.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to associate myself not only with the contributions made by my Greens colleagues, led by Senator Cox, but with the comments made by all of my colleagues. I think we should get a couple of things clear. First of all, who speaks for country? I've actually been there—it's a beautiful part of my state—on country with the TOs, the Wiradjuri mob, and I've seen their care for the country. I've actually walked to the top of Wahluu with them, otherwise known as Mount Panorama, and from the top of Wahluu you can look across and see over to the Belubula River. You can see around that whole stretch of this beautiful country. It has been called Mount Panorama for the last 200 years because when you're on the top of it you can see and feel the connections with country all around. That's one of the reasons why Wahluu is sacred, and, as Senator Cox made clear, it's one of the three brothers from the Dreaming story. It's a really special place.

I had the privilege to go to Wahluu and work with Wiradjuri traditional owners in their first struggle under this same legislation to protect their country. It was, at the time, to protect Wahluu, the southern side of which is a sacred women's place. The local council there, headed by some Nat, had decided they wanted to ignore the sacred women's place and build a go-kart track over it because they thought a go-kart track was more important than that extraordinary cultural place. Did I mention that, when you're there, you can feel that it's a sacred place? You can see those connections around that country. It's a remarkable place.

I rarely give the coalition credit, but former coalition minister Ley had those representations from those same traditional owners—the same traditional owners that are now calling for the protection of this beautiful country on the Belubula River. When she got the representations under section 10, which were viciously opposed by the local council, who just wanted to build their go-kart track, Minister Ley listened to these same traditional owners and, to her credit, protected the site. She understood the cultural connection. She listened to the traditional owners. She accepted their cultural authority—the very same people, the same traditional owners, who have pressed this section 10 application. It's the same country; you can literally see the river from Wahluu. You can see that beautiful stretch of magical countryside from Wahluu.

I gave Minister Ley the credit at the time, but I'll repeat it. She listened to the TOs and she protected that country. It was the right thing to do. She actually had to stare down some pretty ugly Nats in New South Wales, not least the then, I think, Minister for Local Government, Paule Toole—he then became at some point the Nat leader. She had to stare him down to do the right thing, to protect the country. She did, and I give her credit.

Now we have Minister Plibersek, who has had representations from the same traditional owners. Indeed, their section 10 application to protect this beautiful stretch of land on the Belubula River went in, I think, in October 2020, which was about a year before Minister Ley protected Wahluu, which was in 2021.

A year before Minister Ley did the right thing and protected Wahluu, these same traditional owners put in their section 10 application to protect this beautiful stretch of Belubula River, the countryside around it and the dreaming stories that are there. Minister Plibersek has inherited a process that started under Minister Ley, because Minister Ley started the consultation, as she should have. She did the right thing as a minister.

Between the two ministers, Minister Ley and Minister Plibersek, we've now had six rounds of consultation on this section 10 application since October 2020. The local traditional owners don't have external support. They don't have a corporate law firm—a bunch of highly paid lawyers—and cultural consultants and environmental consultants. They've just got their knowledge, strength and stories. Each time, they've engaged in those rounds of consultation. Meanwhile, the WA based mining company has paid high-end lawyers to come in and bombard them. Those opposite talk about a process that's caught someone on the hop. You couldn't jump over the amount of paperwork that the TOs have had to deal with and confront to defend their country and stories. Six rounds of consultation—did I mention that?—and the coalition say that this somehow got hijacked by the minister in the last few months. That's a total falsity from the coalition. There have been six rounds of consultation, which started under Minister Ley. The same traditional owners she listened to and respected, for whom she did the right thing and protected Wahluu, are saying: 'Listen to us again. Hear our cultural authority. We want to protect this beautiful part of the site because of the dreaming story about the three brothers and the creation story about the blue banded bee.' These aren't secrets. This isn't secret knowledge. This is knowledge they've shared with their community. It's knowledge they shared with us in a briefing earlier today. Senator Cox read that onto the record today. I won't repeat it. It's information they'd share with the coalition if they wanted to listen, but they don't want to listen. They only want to listen to the WA based goldmining company, which obviously wants to make some money out of this patch of land.

It is an extraordinary place. It's called Belubula because in Wiradjuri 'belubula' means 'two rivers'. It's where the two rivers meet. There are 30 natural springs in this place. Of course natural springs in a part of my beautiful home state that so often can be pretty dry—this beautiful patch of country just to the west of Bathurst—are pretty special places. That's why landowners there and anyone who looks will find artefact after artefact on this little stretch of river. It's because it's always got water and always has had water. It's a special part of my home state. It's a special part of the country.

They've made their position clear not since March but since October 2020, and it's knowledge that is thousands of years old. The coalition don't want to hear it. I get that they don't want to hear it. They don't care. They just want to approve a goldmine. I get that. They see gold and money. They don't see beautiful country and they don't want to hear the TOs. And then they say, 'Oh, but the land council has gone from opposition to neutral.' The only authority that they want to listen to is the land council. I wish someone in the coalition understood what land councils are in my home state of New South Wales. Land councils in New South Wales are established not under First Nations cultural authority but under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act, their purpose is as follows. I will read from the New South Wales government's Aboriginal Land Rights Act website:

The purpose of the ALRA is:

It's a New South Wales act which establishes statutory authorities to manage that land claim process and to provide some community benefit to all the Aboriginal people in the area from the land that is transferred to them by the New South Wales government, and sometimes by councils. It's a statutory process designed to manage that land rights process. It does not provide for cultural authority. Sometimes those people elected on to land councils do also have cultural authority. They sometimes are traditional owners, but it's by happenstance and not by design.

If you want to find the traditional owners for a part of my beautiful home state of New South Wales, sometimes they will be on the land council, but most often they're not because the land council's job is not to speak with cultural authority. It's not a statutory job. It was never established as a statutory cultural authority, and there's a reason for that—because the New South Wales parliament shouldn't nominate who has cultural authority and shouldn't nominate who are the traditional owners. That's a matter for First Nations mob, to give that cultural authority, to identify the elders.

And so when the coalition comes in here and says, 'The land council has gone from negative to neutral and that's the end of it,' it shows base ignorance about what land councils are in New South Wales—deep, base ignorance. They're not the cultural authority. They're not the traditional owners. Sometimes those elected do have that authority, and then they bring that authority to the work that they do. A land council is elected from all of the First Nations peoples that live in the geographical region of the land council. But to come in here and misrepresent the role of land councils as though they are the final arbiter of cultural authority shows base ignorance by the coalition. But you wouldn't expect more from them, would you? You wouldn't expect more from them, because this is convenient for them. They can point to the land council and say, 'Well, the land council has said something, so we can ignore all these traditional owners'—even the ones, the very same ones, former Minister Ley quite rightly listened to and accepted the cultural authority of.

This Labor government has done the right thing. They've done the right thing here. Minister Plibersek has followed the process that was established by Minister Ley and, after six rounds of consultation, has accepted the cultural authority of the Wiradjuri elders and the traditional owners and has protected this beautiful part of the state from a tailings dam. It's not a determination about the whole gold mine, but it is a determination about the tailings dam in this beautiful little patch of New South Wales. We're giving credit where credit's due, and we'll back it in on this motion.

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

By making this declaration under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and effectively stopping this mining project, Minister Plibersek has done what no member who is truly working for all Australians should do. The declaration must be disallowed by this chamber, and that is why I rise to speak today.

Minister Plibersek's declaration is reflective of the antidevelopment approach of this Albanese government. This project was estimated to have provided around 870 full-time jobs to the region. The Greens might suggest that this is about protecting 'a nice bit of our country', but they disregard the fact that 870 full-time jobs, especially in a cost-of-living crisis, for the people of the region, including Indigenous people, is what the minister has effectively shut down, as well as millions of dollars in royalties and even more to the Australian economy broadly.

Taxes and rates in future years have absolutely been trashed, simply with the stroke of a pen. And why? Because of the objections of a select group of around 17 people who were not members of the local Aboriginal land council. If they were traditional owners, why, then, wouldn't they be part of the local Aboriginal land council which deals directly with land instead of simply being a registered charity? It is, in fact, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council who have authority to speak about Indigenous cultural heritage in the area of this project, despite suggestions by others in this chamber.

The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council did not oppose this project and believed any impacts on heritage items would have been manageable. But the views of the land council were disregarded in favour of a smaller group of opponents. Why was this small group chosen by Minister Plibersek? Because they were convenient. They were an easy group of people to use for the purposes of shutting down this project.

This declaration by Minister Plibersek is a prime example of Indigenous people and cultural heritage and connection to land being weaponised. The Greens love weaponising Indigenous people in this way in this country, because they're completely and utterly anti-development. 'Anti-development' means anti improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. We know the EDO, which no doubt are good friends of the Greens, had their hands all over this case. They helped to get legal representation for those that opposed the mining project. As we know from past experience, like in the case of the Barossa gas project, the EDO are more than happy to use Indigenous people to achieve their own ends and to block projects that don't align with their ideology. Make no mistake: this is about aligning with their ideology, not about improving the lives of Indigenous Australians or Australians in general.

Labor is all too happy to go along with this green ideology at the expense of economic development. You see, Anthony Albanese claims to be all about economic independence—or at least he claims to be about this since his speech at the Garma festival this year. But don't be fooled by his comments, because his actions speak louder than his words. His Labor government refuses to defund the EDO—who we know exploit Indigenous people—even though, as this case in Blayney demonstrates, the EDO actively work against economic development on Indigenous land. If Anthony Albanese was serious when he made those comments at Garma, he would defund the EDO and would step in when his ministers make decisions like this which have the opposite effect of what he claims. But he won't defund the EDO, and he won't step in when his ministers do things like this, because he doesn't genuinely care about the economic independence of Indigenous Australians.

In fact, I would strongly suggest that his comments at Garma were simply a way for him to spruik his renewables-only energy policy.

You see, this is an example of Indigenous Australians agreeing to the development of their land and maximising all the potential that it has to offer but the Albanese government blatantly stopping them from doing so. Too regularly, we are seeing the desire of traditional owners to become economically independent on their land being stymied in the name of activist ideology. The problem with our current system is that it allows a government that is anti development, like this Albanese government, to swoop in at the last second and stop these projects in the name of cultural heritage protection. We are left with a system that disincentivises investors from coming anywhere near us.

Why would investors want anything to do with a location where a project could pass the approval of the state-level independent planning commission, pass the approval of the environment minister's own department and have the consent of the Aboriginal organisation who has the authority to speak on matters of cultural heritage, only to be sent back to the drawing board, staring down the barrel of another five to 10 years, with tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain? How the Prime Minister can possibly claim to encourage economic development on Indigenous land when he allows a system like this to operate makes absolutely no sense—no sense whatsoever.

Some of the evidence that was initially included in the application, such as camp ovens and scar trees, were found, upon survey by an expert engaged by the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, to be inauthentic—inauthenticity. That is why we have these organisations—to determine who is making things up and who is legitimate. There are also suggestions by the former chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council that some of the evidence was in fact added over time—that, when the ovens were found to be inauthentic, suddenly songlines about the blue-banded bee appeared.

Then we have the minister's own explanation of her decision. While the declaration was made under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, Minister Plibersek is now saying that her decision was also related to objections raised by sheep farmers and beekeepers who were concerned about the project affecting the quality of water they used. The minister is so obviously getting desperate to justify the declaration she has made, she's now scrambling to bolster her case and save face before the Australian public. You've got the Greens who will defend those who make inauthentic claims in this place, because it suits their anti-development Green obsession, and this is who the minister would prefer to listen to. She finds herself in this position because the pressure is quite rightly mounting on her to ensure that she provides a true response, a reason that we can all agree with, only we can't—not when those who are representative of the traditional owners, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and the former NSWALC chair are stating otherwise.

They want a way out of disadvantage. They want jobs. They want opportunity. But it's falling on deaf ears with this government.

The minister knows that Australians can see right through her culturally sensitive explanations to the heart of her ideological pursuit. The reality is that this declaration must be disallowed, because the evidence that it was all just an ideological ploy is too strong to ignore. I for one will not let Indigenous Australians be taken advantage of. I will not let them be used as weapons to further the agenda of this Albanese government. If this declaration is allowed to remain in place, then that is exactly what we will be left with. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I won't stand for it. The coalition will not stand for it. Anyone who truly cares about advancing the rights and interests of Indigenous Australians should not either.

It is now time; the failures of Closing the Gap have come about because Indigenous Australians are more dependent on welfare than any other group of Australians in this country. The way out of this is opportunity, employment and economic development. This Albanese government is ensuring that economic development will never eventuate under their leadership. That is utterly shameful. They're in partnership with the Greens, who prefer to see Indigenous Australians as spiritual beings hovering above the earth and to romanticise our culture just as if they lived it themselves. They don't want to see Indigenous Australians become anything more than the noble savage that they view Indigenous Australians as—the museum piece to be ogled at and not Australian citizens, with the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities to make the most of what this wonderful country has to offer.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this motion. When Juukan Gorge was destroyed, we said as a nation—Labor, Liberal, Nationals and the crossbench—that we shouldn't allow the destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage in this way ever again. When we have an issue like this, where thousands of years of cultural heritage is at risk, it's our responsibility to protect it.

What we see today is proof that Peter Dutton would plunge Australia back into Scott Morrison-style chaos. Just like Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton is showing us he's prepared to ignore the law, cut corners and play favourites. Clearly, the Liberals and Nationals want a system where getting projects approved depends more on whether they like you than on whether you comply with the law. That is no way to run a government. It'll be robodebt, sports rorts and car park rorts all over again if Mr Dutton and his coalition team have their way.

It's a dangerous way to operate. It's a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs. There won't be a renewable energy project that's safe, for example. The opposition have promised to cut approval times in half, and now we know how—by ignoring the law, cutting corners and playing favourites. Peter Dutton must immediately explain whether there are other projects he'll approve or axe without knowing the details or applying the law. That is a frightening prospect for all Australians.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to. A division is required. Given that it's past 6.30, the division will be held over until tomorrow.