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

In respect of documents relating to an order for the production of documents concerning the McPhillamys Gold Project, I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

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

I rise to make a contribution to the motion to take note of the response to order for the production of documents 601, on the McPhillamys Gold Project, and the statement of reasons. Again we see this come back, yet it's under another name. Every day we turn around and there's another name. There's the McPhillamys gold mine. Last week was the disallowance motion around the declaration on the Belubula River of Kings Plain. We always have a new name for it. But the name that should be put to this is why the opposition are going on a witch hunt to look for the statement of reasons for why the environment minister has made a ruling under section 10 to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country. She has made, for once, a decent decision to protect country—to protect the freshwater area at the headwaters of this river in New South Wales.

My colleague Senator Shoebridge, who is also here tonight in the chamber, made a contribution to the debate on the disallowance motion last week and spoke very clearly about the New South Wales land council act, under which people are claiming they have the cultural authority to speak. It will be no surprise to those here in this chamber tonight that not all blackfellas agree. There are people sitting on opposite sides of this chamber and here on the crossbench who all have different opinions and have all had different experiences. That is why we can't go on a witch-hunt looking for a statement of reasons. The reasons are clear. If you are to talk to the traditional owners and not use them to discredit each other, attack each other and defame each other about the true Aboriginal cultural heritage that exists in this area, you must sit and listen. The environment minister has done that. Minister Plibersek, from the other place, has done that. She has done her due diligence in asking for what the dreaming story, the creation story—men, women's and everyone's story—is for this area. There is history of this recording of another section 10.

But in question time last week the opposition came in. The coalition and most of the crossbench had been put up to this. They came here with questions about why this decision was made. It's like a broken record. You need to let this go. This is about a tailings dam. It is not about McPhillamys gold mine being stopped. You are gaslighting everyone by saying that. It is about the tailings dam, which can be moved. Everyone in this place is just so outraged that this has happened to the poor Regis Resources goldmining company from Perth. They're not even from the east coast. They're from my home state. And yet Juukan Gorge happened to the PKKP people. There was international outrage about what Rio Tinto did, and everyone in this place went: 'Oh, jeez! A mining company does that, blows up some caves, and tries to destroy Aboriginal cultural heritage.' I sat on that committee and listened to the traditional owners and those around this country that are constantly fighting for land and sea country—constantly—because none of this is being identified.

Minister McAllister is here tonight. She knows that I will get up at every Senate estimates and ask the same question: where is our Aboriginal cultural heritage standalone legislation? I'm sure she gets sick of me asking that question, because I am not letting that go. I am not letting go of the fact that this government agreed to have standalone cultural heritage legislation and to strengthen our environment laws and it has done neither. In fact, we have the Prime Minister today skipping to the tune of the Western Australian government and the big gas corporations in my home state of Western Australia, saying, 'We will follow their lead.' Whatever they write, this government will skip to their tune.

Protecting cultural heritage is everybody's responsibility in this country. It is the first chapter of the story of this country. When I brought to this parliament the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024, that was what we sought to record—the first chapter. The second chapter is about the colonial story. The third chapter is about the multicultural society that we live in and should be proud of. As Senator Hanson-Young said before, the continued race baiting, dividing and dog whistling that is happening about race in this country must stop. It must stop now.

As we go to an election, we must reflect on where we've come since last year. This time last year, we were looking at a referendum where we would recognise First Nations people as the first peoples of this country. First Nations people are saying, 'We want to continue this journey with truth-telling, and we want to continue this journey to get a treaty in this country.' We over here in the Australian Greens will continue to pursue that, and that is my job as the First Nations portfolio holder, along with making sure that the resources companies in this country absolutely put free, prior and informed consent front and centre and absolutely make sure that their monitoring and surveys of heritage are done properly.

As for the review that this government is doing on native title, I look forward to seeing how that detaches and decouples heritage from existing native title laws, because that's where the problem is. We get to identify, and we continue to have to call on the legal systems in this country to prove who we are and prove that sovereignty was never ceded in this country but that it was part of an invasion process. Colonialism still continues today. As long as the environment laws which house the laws for Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country remain rigged in favour of developers and resources companies, we will never get ahead. We will continue to have High Court challenges. We will continue to have inquiries on this, because those laws need to be fixed. They need to be fixed to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That's why we have it. That's why we signed up to it. But we still haven't ratified it, because this government refused to. They refused to hold the inquiry that was put forward by Senator Thorpe about ratifying that document, enshrining it into Australian law and adhering to it. Until we actually get that, it's lip service that we get in this place.

Activists continue to stand on the front line to protect country, defend country and hold close the stories that they have, which have been passed down to them for many, many generations. You might sit over on the opposite side or even on this side of the benches and think to yourself, 'Well, they're all just made up.' I've heard that more than once. People on Sky News and in the Murdoch press want to come out and say that things are made up. You might not have had that experience. You might not have been told that. It doesn't mean it's made up; it means you don't know about it. So how about you get out in the community and go and speak to the people who can tell you the statement of reasons that the opposition are wanting in this OPD?

They're looking for this wonderful gold gem that they're panning for. It's like panning for gold. That's what they want to do. They want to find that one little nugget that's going to give them a sense of hope that they can continue to race-bait and divide people in this country. It's not going to happen, because he people who claim that they have the cultural authority in this country don't. Under the New South Wales land act, a landholder, by accident, can be a traditional owner. It is not native title. It is not the federal process. So using that as your baton is not going to work. You can pass that down the line all you want and try and pass that off as some level of cultural authority. The hide of people sitting on those opposition benches coming in here and saying, 'Let's listen to the land council'—what, because that's convenient for you, you're trying to use that now? Last week we were in here voting on a land council inquiry to bring them all round the front and ask them questions because that's what you wanted to do. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.