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

Since I last rose to speak on this bill, there have been a number of developments which provide further justification for this bill to be passed. First, we saw a meeting occur last month with representatives from land councils across New South Wales and New South Wales government officials where many participants spoke strongly against the decision. This was a statewide meeting, called as a result of this decision and how concerned people are about its impact on land rights and about activism that is being allowed in the name of legitimate cultural heritage concerns. At this meeting, Indigenous leaders likened the Albanese government to mission managers who are disregarding the voice of Indigenous communities. When asked, the Wiradjuri present said that none of them had heard of the blue-banded bee dreaming story that Ms Plibersek used to claim the goldmine could not go ahead on the planned site.

Further on the topic of activism, earlier this month the Environmental Defenders Office announced a new specialist legal team to, allegedly, support Indigenous people who want to protect their culture and country. The EDO have proven, time and time again, that they are not interested in defending the environment, as their name suggests, but in aggressive lawfare which stops crucial development projects, and they're not afraid to use Indigenous Australians to achieve their aims. Groups like this will destroy our country and are another reason why this bill needs to be supported.

Finally, we've also had correspondence tabled in this chamber confirming that our objection to the minister's declaration is not partisan, as New South Wales Premier Mr Minns didn't support Ms Plibersek's decision. We're now also told that their resources minister, Courtney Houssos, wrote to Minister Plibersek just days after, with concerns about the threat to investment and noting the benefit that would be lost to the broader community. She's right.

If we don't overturn this decision, we lose millions of dollars to the economy every year. We cannot stand aside and let this decision decimate our nation, and that is why this bill must be supported today.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes this bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. The statement of reasons for the minister's decision has been available on the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's website for some time, and the minister has spoken at length about her decision, including to the parliament.

As the company has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further running commentary before the court has had its say. What I will say is that, under the Albanese Labor government, we have approved more than 40 mining projects and have doubled the rate of on-time approvals since coming to government.

Just last month, Minister Plibersek approved a new critical minerals project near Broken Hill. The Broken Hill Cobalt Project will mine and refine cobalt for use in batteries. That's critical for transition. It will be one of the largest producers of cobalt to use in batteries anywhere in the world. It will produce enough cobalt to power millions of electric vehicles. It will create hundreds of jobs. Minister Plibersek was able to do this because she follows the law and applies it to the facts of the projects before her.

What should be deeply concerning to Australian people and to those in the Senate is that the opposition leader has said that he would approve projects without knowing the details or applying the law. Clearly, those opposite want a system where getting projects approved depends more on whether they like you than on whether you comply with the law. It's a dangerous way to operate, and a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs—a dangerous way to operate for that very reason. There won't be a renewable energy project that's safe. The opposition should explain whether there are other projects that will be approved or axed without them knowing the details or applying the law. The Liberals have said that they will halve environmental approval times, with no plan to get there. We know what that means: Peter Dutton will wave through approvals on his pet projects without any consideration of their environmental impacts.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this piece of legislation, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. I know there are several senators who are very, very keen to have their say about what has been an absolute shocker of a decision by the Labor government and indeed the minister responsible—shall I say, irresponsible—Minister Plibersek. Here we have a project that would be delivering jobs in a regional community, a project that the local Indigenous landowners wanted to see developed and a project that the broader community had been waiting for to come to fruition. Yet the Labor Party, in some vain attempt to secure votes in inner city seats like Melbourne, Fitzroy, Brunswick and their equivalents in Sydney and Brisbane, overturned those stakeholders and that regional community—800 well-paid jobs in a country town.

Why are we surprised? Why are the Liberal and National parties surprised that the Labor Party, once the great political movement of the workers, is now the political party of the far-left extremists in our society and is more interested in waging war with the Greens on ideological issues such as the State of Israel's right to exist and whether nuclear power should be part of a net zero solution? The Labor Party has turned its back on the working men and women of this country. That's why stalwarts such as Kim Carr and Jennie George have similarly turned their back on the Labor Party and called out the duplicitous behaviour. They're saying one thing out of one side of their mouth and, when it comes to making serious decisions of government, turning their back on the working men and women of Australia.

This project would have delivered $1 billion worth of economic benefit to this community, not to mention the social benefit of well-paying long-term intergenerational jobs. But yes. In order to have another fight with the Greens to somehow seen to sop to the inner city elites, Plibersek has really nailed this government's colours to the mast. It's just another decision in a litany of decisions of turning their backs not only on regional Australia—we kind of take it as given on this side of the chamber that when Labor comes to power the nine million of us that don't live in a capital city will get shafted. Hello, welcome to a Labor government. It's no different under this lot. Unfortunately, they've turned their back on their own tradition, on their own heritage and turned their back on mining projects which are subject to severe and significant environmental regulation and also provide much needed benefits to communities. I know that Senator Davey has more to say on this matter.

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

Let's be clear: the Minister for the Environment and Water's appalling decision to block the McPhillamys goldmine in Blayney is just another example of a growing list of Labor failures, particularly in regional Australia. The Albanese government needs to be held to account for what it has done not just to Blayney and the community of Blayney but to the mining sector, to the Australian economy and to Australia's reputation as a good place to invest.

The cancellation of a billion-dollar investment into this country on the baseless claims put forward by a legally insignificant Indigenous corporation whose views have been roundly questioned and dismissed by countless other recognised Indigenous bodies is, as I said, appalling. Then there are some of the headlines that have been reported on this decision from other Aboriginal corporations. The Daily Telegraph: 'None of us have heard of it'. The Australian: 'Land council chiefs to hold crisis meeting on Plibersek'. One thing this decision has done is actually unify all the New South Wales land councils in coming together and calling for better recognition, better understanding and better transparency in this process.

What this minister has shown is Labor is not interested in listening to the recognised Indigenous voices in matters that affect them. If this minister did, she would have heard that support for this project was given by nearly every Aboriginal land council, including the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. As the recognised authority in this area, under New South Wales law, there was neutral—they recognised the economic benefit. They felt that the risk to cultural heritage was minimal.

Instead, this minister made this appalling decision. My understanding is she never travelled out to the site, but she listened to an organisation that has 17 people representing it, according to reports, that has no native title to the land. The Wiradyuri Aboriginal corporation didn't even issue a written statement to the minister, choosing instead to convey their concerns verbally. We can't get to the bottom of whether that verbal information was passed on to a member of the department or directly to the minister herself. If it was to a departmental official, the minister's actually getting into Chinese whispers because it's not a written statement. There is simply no way of confirming what was actually said to the minister and how that advice could possibly lead to a veto of federal and state approvals.

As we learnt through Senator Duniam's questioning in Senate estimates, they didn't even send out the person who had done the section 10 audit and who had recommended against the section 10 declaration. The departmental appointed person was not sent out again to reassess and re-evaluate following this verbal information. For a government that claims to be transparent, there is a significant gap between what is being said and what is being done. It needs to be called out. People need to be held accountable and people need to be questioning the minister's reasoning for her decision as day by day her reasoning seems to change. She provides different reasons. First she said the mine threatened cultural heritage. Then she said it was environmentally risky. Well, if it was environmentally risky it would have failed the environmental approvals. If it was culturally risky it would have failed the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments that had been done at both state and federal levels. Plibersek has shown no courage—

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

Minister Plibersek.

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

Minister Plibersek, thank you for the correction. By denying the release of details, she is showing a significant lack of transparency.

Just recently she blocked a request of an OPD by Senator Duniam. It's not good enough. This government was elected promising to be different, to be more open, to be more transparent. What we have now is a government of non-disclosure agreements, hidden consultations and absolutely no transparency in their decisions, particularly in a decision that is overriding other federal and state processes. Organisations that have no legally recognised authority over an area should not have the final say on nationally significant projects worth billions of dollars to the Australian economy over and above the transparent, robust federal and state processes that had already occurred. Advice from an authority not legally recognised cannot be viewed when it directly contradicts that received by every other organisation.

A question I would ask of the minister is: what makes the word of 17 people more important than the word of the legally recognised Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, more important than the departmentally appointed cultural auditor, more important than the state Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments and more important than the EPBC process?

The New South Wales Labor government was right to condemn this decision. Premier Chris Minns was right to call the decision to block the mine a 'mistake'. He was right to call for the decision to be overturned. My friend and colleague—and the now Nationals candidate for Calare—Sam Farraway was right, in his role as an MLC in the New South Wales parliament, to move a motion calling upon the New South Wales Labor government to work to revoke the federal government's decision.

The Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation is closely involved with the hostile activism of the Environmental Defenders Office, which receives about $15 million of funding from the Albanese government. So our own government is funding an organisation that regularly takes court action against the government—that gets itself involved in dispute issues like this, that is absolutely anti-mining, anti-productivity and anti-process. We've recently seen press announcements from the EDO that they've now set up a whole team to get involved in cultural and heritage issues to block projects such as the Blayney McPhillamys goldmine. They are using and, in my opinion, abusing Aboriginal and cultural heritage issues for their own goals.

The coalition condemns the use of taxpayers' money to fund nefarious and far-left activism and lawfare such as this, and in particular, cases such as Blayney. The claims being made by the Wiradyuri have been called out by the former chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council Roy Ah-See, who has said that such issues like this are making a mockery out of the native title process.

The Minerals Council of Australia have similarly expressed disappointment with the minister's decision and how it negatively affects Indigenous Australians. They point out that in 2022 alone, the Australian mining sector involved nearly 500 Indigenous businesses, spending upwards of $1 billion and directly employing over 5,200 Indigenous Australians, representative of six per cent of the total workforce. The Minerals Council have said, 'These are highly skilled, well-paid jobs that contribute directly to the government's Closing the Gap outcomes.' But that won't happen at Blayney now. That won't happen because this minister has decided that 17 people can override the wellbeing of the broader community. The coalition believes that, to achieve real outcomes for communities, we need to back initiatives that will help the economy, support local jobs and create industry incentives. On this principle, the coalition vows to reinstate the mine under a Dutton-Littleproud government. Because on top of the $1 billion in investment, this project would have generated a thousand local jobs and provided more than $200 million in royalties for the New South Wales government. Make no mistake about it, Minister Plibersek's decision to terminate the Blayney goldmine is not just a billion-dollar loss to the Australian economy; it is akin to national sabotage.

I have heard time and time again from others in the resources sector that they are now rethinking how much they invest in Australia because this decision undermines any level of certainty they could have had through our very long and very onerous approvals processes. Prior to this decision, while no knowing that we have long and robust processes, there was a level of confidence in the system. Post this decision, that confidence has blown away, because now they recognise they can jump through every hoop that is put before them and get every tick that they need, only to have it all ripped away on the word of a handful of people who have decided they don't like the project for some reason and who probably have the backing of this new EDO team of cultural and environmental experts. Consider how many billions of dollars will never enter this country because this government has created such hostile conditions for investors.

This Labor government should be ashamed of this decision. The Prime Minister should show leadership in this matter and demand that the environment minister reinstate the mine. I know the minister has defended her decision to invoke section 10 and put a stop to the mine by suggesting the action only applies to the tailings dam, but people see through that as an excuse. People understand it takes time for mines and other large industrial projects to receive approval, and the minister has admitted as such more recently. She knew, because she was warned, that even a partial section 10 determination would make this entire project unviable and she went ahead and did so anyway, based on the word of a handful of people about a Dreamtime story that other Aboriginal organisations in the region claim they've never heard of.

This Albanese Labor government should be ashamed of itself and the damage it has caused, particularly the damage to our international reputation. They have knowingly opened a Pandora's box during a cost-of-living crisis, when this country needs important investments, when we need to start investing in productivity instead of public servants. For the sake of regional Australia, the coalition calls on the government to overturn this decision.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of months ago the environment minister did something that happens very rarely in this place: she listened to traditional owners and made a declaration to protect First Nations cultural heritage. This was the first time Minister Plibersek had used her power under the federal Aboriginal heritage protection act to protect sacred heritage.

The federal heritage protection act is a last line of defence for First Peoples and only applies when state or territory legislation has failed. The declared area in this decision is the area which comprises part of the Belubula River, its headwaters and its springs on Wiradjuri country at Kings Plains near Blayney in New South Wales.

Kings Plains contains a multitude of cultural sites of significance, particularly at the headwaters of the Belubula River. The Kings Plains region sits between the three brothers: Gaanha Bula, Guhanawalnyi and Wahluu. The three brothers dreaming story is well known in the region and songlines transverse this area between the three mountains. There are other dreaming stories related specifically to the headwaters of the Belubula, meaning the springs above and the river below. These stories cannot be shared due to cultural sensitivity.

Since colonisation, First Peoples have asserted our ensuring sovereign rights to manage, access and care for country. This includes our right and responsibility to maintain and protect our tangible and intangible cultural heritage including the lands, waters, skies, our sacred sites and our songlines.

Wiradjuri elders and custodians have asserted their sovereign rights to protect their sacred heritage. They have done by this using one of the only tools that First Peoples have to avoid destruction of their heritage: by making an application under the federal heritage protection act. This happened back in 2020 and was followed by a comprehensive assessment that included independent reporting and mapping of significant sites. There were significant delays to the decision, which eventually told us what Wiradjuri elders have known for thousands and thousands of years. They know their country, and they know where their sacred sites and dreaming stories are.

Following the minister's decision last month, we have seen a full-scale assault by the coalition, the business and mining lobbyists, and the Murdoch media. It has been relentless with stories on Sky News and in the Australian every day attacking the environment minister for simply listening to traditional owners. It is clear that certain groups, like the coalition and mining industry, claim to support protecting First Peoples' cultural heritage until it impacts their bottom lines.

Our heritage laws, like our environment laws, are not broken. These laws have been carefully designed by the government and industry to allow for the continuation of the systematic plundering and exploitation of country, displacement of First Peoples and desecration of our cultural tangible and intangible heritage. The loopholes that riddle the legislation were created so that big industry, particularly agriculture and mining, would be able to do what they have done since colonisation: rape, pillage, plunder and pollute the lands, waters and skies of this continent with little to no regard for the destruction caused to our sacred sites, our totems and our songlines. This ecocidal project is an act of cultural genocide, and it continues to this day.

When politicians have actually used their power to protect country, the political backlash has been swift and severe. It's been so severe that Prime Minister Albanese has had to step in and undermine his environment minister. In the last few weeks, he's shown just how willing he is to bend over backwards for the Minerals Council and the Business Council. This shows that the mining industry expects the Labor government to do its bidding. What else are all its donations for? When Labor steps out of line, the industry teams up with the Murdoch media to punish them. Governments are supposed to work for the community—not for themselves and not for the corporations. This bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, which is the latest attack from the coalition, seeks to override the minister's section 10 decision and prevent any further cultural heritage processes happening on the proposed mine site.

First Peoples have not ceded our sovereignty. This means we have not given up our sovereign rights and responsibilities to care for the lands, waters and skies of this continent. This is why we want a treaty, so that each sovereign nation across the continent can self-determine its own aspirations and assert its sovereign rights to care for country and protect sacred sites. Treaty will avoid some of the issues that have come up here by ensuring that the right people with the authority to speak for country are properly consulted and that their rights to free, prior and informed consent are upheld. Native title should be abolished in this country. Native title is a racist piece of legislation that only divides our families and communities. It pits us against one another. Mining companies won't be able to pick off a particular land council or native title body only to be challenged years later for doing so. They will have to respect the cultural authority of language groups and ensure all families and knowledge holders are involved in decision-making so that First Nations can self-determine our own aspirations.

Treaty offers a pathway forward that respects the rights, knowledge and expertise of First Peoples. The federal government has committed to truth and treaty, and it needs to make good on these promises. The federal government must begin treaty negotiations with all sovereign First Peoples as a matter of urgency to enable all language groups to uphold their cultural authority over country, self-determine their own aspirations and have greater control over decisions relating to the management of country, rather than the mission management style that this government uses to undermine our people.

We know that our cultural heritage laws are failing First Peoples. It has been three years since the inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge and A way forward, the final report, recommended a total overhaul of cultural heritage protections in this country and mapped out a pathway for reform. But we are still waiting. The recommendations from the 2021 Juukan Gorge inquiry are still yet to be fully implemented. What do you know? Every day that these recommendations wait to be implemented, sacred sites and songlines risk being further destroyed. There is an urgent need for new standalone cultural heritage legislation, including protections for intangible cultural heritage and underwater cultural heritage.

The Albanese Labor government committed to implementing these recommendations and mapped out its commitments to First Peoples in its Nature Positive Plan, including new standalone legislation and a national environmental standard on First Nations participation and engagement in decision-making. Yet we are six months out from an election and still have seen no evidence of any progress. Labor says one thing and Labor does something else. It's all words and no action.

While the government stalls on cultural heritage protections, there are tragedies like the destruction of Juukan Gorge happening all over the continent. This includes Binybara, which you may know as Lee Point, where earlier this year Minister Plibersek rejected a section 10 application by the Larrakia custodians and paved the way for Defence Housing Australia to destroy the sacred sites and dreaming stories situated at Binybara. That's not to mention the section 10 application at Murujuga, which the minister has been sitting on for years now, leaving Murujuga custodians waiting for a decision while they watch their sacred rock art, a worldwide wonder, being destroyed. Murujuga traditional custodian Raelene Cooper said recently:

I am heartbroken, devastated and furious that our governments continue to allow Woodside to destroy our sacred rock art, our songlines and our precious marine sanctuaries.

I have now been waiting more than two years for a Section 10 application I filed in early 2022 under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.

In those two years the development on Murujuga has continued unimpeded, and there has been irreversible and irreplaceable damage to my Ngurra. The rock art has been moved and the damage has already been done. We are still waiting for any protection for our cultural heritage.

As far as I am concerned, we have now exhausted every avenue, every mechanism and every protection available to us as traditional custodians trying to care for our Country, and we still don't have any defence against industry.

The federal government must progress its work program for strengthening protections for country and First Peoples' tangible and intangible cultural heritage as a matter of urgency—if you really care—including through the establishment of transparent timelines and broad public consultation processes, not the ones with mining companies but the ones with our people. You must allow for appropriate scrutiny and accountability. The federal Labor government must implement in full all recommendations from the 2021 A way forward report into the destruction of Juukan Gorge, including the introduction of new standalone cultural heritage legislation, as a matter of urgency.

Everyone speaks of being committed to First Nations justice in this country. The earrings and the designer Aboriginal clothing that you walk in here wearing and your dot paintings on the wall—they're all nice and fluffy for you, and they make you feel nice. You might even have an Aboriginal friend, but you do nothing in this place. You actually do nothing around justice for my people, justice for this land and justice for this water that we all depend on. Our future generations depend on clean drinking water, but this place doesn't care about that.

This place cares about the bottom line of a vote and about being in bed with mining companies and corporations who donate large sums of money to both major parties, so they're basically buying votes. When I had the Minerals Council's CEO come and loiter outside my door asking for my vote, she said to me, 'If you vote for us and help us, we will support deaths in custody.' That's what she said—the audacity of these people. Where is the care? Where is the empathy? That's what we're dealing with.

The only way forward in this country is with a treaty. It will end the war against our people, which is ongoing. If this government had the will and put their money where their mouths were, they'd entertain this, but they're so scared of losing this next election that they'll scrape the bottom of the barrel to be mates with the coalition so that they may get elected next time. Well, if you do nothing about black justice while you've got a little bit of time left, then I'll encourage everybody to not support this government ever again.

That's why we need more black sovereigns and more Independents in this place so that the Aboriginal people in this space are not managed by a whitefella. If you look at all the parties, they're all white men. You've got Dutton, Albo and Adam Bandt, so the black people in these parties are kneeling to a white master. We're not going to get anywhere that way. We need more of me. We need more Independents who are loud and proud and not part of the native police.

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

A lot of people have spoken about the Blayney goldmine, and a lot of people have spoken about the country, but hardly anyone has actually been there. Maybe two of us have been there. But I've been up there. I've been on that country, and I've spoken with traditional owners on country. They are the same traditional owners that the coalition are attacking. When you go to this beautiful part of my home state of New South Wales and you climb to the top of Wahluu, which is a sacred mountain for the Wiradjuri people—it's also known as Mount Panorama—and you look around, you get a sense for why it's a sacred place. There's a part of Wahluu that's a sacred traditional women's place, and you can look around and actually see down to Belubula River, which is where this Western Australian mining company wanted to put a tailings dam. There's a reason that Wahluu was called Mount Panorama after the invasion, when people came in and took Wiradjuri land. It's because it's an extraordinary place, and you can see connections with other sacred mountains. It's an absolutely magical part of the world.

The Wiradjuri traditional owners know it's a magical part of the world. In fact, they fought for years to protect one side of Wahluu from being turned in to a go-kart track by the local council, run by a Nat. He hadn't declared himself as a Nat; he was one of these 'country independents' that the Nats put up in councils in New South Wales. But the local National Party, backed in by the local National MP, who ended up becoming the Leader of the Nationals—a bloke called Toole—were hot to trot to turn part of Wahluu, this sacred mountain, into a go-kart track. They got some funding from the federal government and thought they could just roll over the traditional owners. And the traditional owners just said, 'No.' They went to the council meeting, and they got the kind of disrespect we've heard here from the coalition—this dismissal and disrespect that the traditional owners have had from the latest contributions from the coalition. They had that disrespect in council.

To their enormous credit, they stood firm and continued to advocate for their country and this sacred women's site. They put a section 10 application to the then coalition government to protect the site. I don't often give the coalition credit, but former minister Ley read section 10 and she listened to the traditional owners. She commissioned the consultant's report into this beautiful part of my home state, this sacred site on Wahluu. The consultant's report came in, having consulted with these very same traditional owners, the local National-dominated council and the local National MP, Toole. They said it is a sacred site and that Wahluu is special and should be protected. I'd invite anyone to walk up to the top of Wahluu, to stand there on that sacred place and not get a sense of that sacred connection.

Of course, at a state level and a council level, the National Party said exactly what we've just heard from the National Party and the Liberal Party here. These traditional owners should just be ignored and run over. The site should just be demolished for a go-kart track. I say again: coalition minister Ley, as she then was, did the right thing. She listened, she understood and she said, 'No.' She said that this sacred part of my home state should be protected for the cultural connections because it's a sacred women's site. They were exactly the same traditional owners that the coalition is now saying are illegitimate, should be ignored and should be rejected. Thankfully, then minister Ley made that decision to protect Wahluu, and in fact I've been back to Wahluu with the traditional owners since that decision. Their sense of relief at finally being listened to and having that sacred place protected was palpable, as was their gratitude for that. They shouldn't have to be grateful that the system protects cultural heritage, but they were grateful, and they felt they'd been listened to and heard. And Wahluu has been protected—well, that bit of Wahluu, anyway.

Twelve months before the decision was made by then minister Ley to protect Wahluu, another section 10 application was put in by those same traditional owners—the Wiradjuri owners—to protect this magical part of the Belubula River.

The traditional Dreamtime story of the three brothers, the connection to the blue-banded bee, was part of why the traditional owners said that little magical part of the Belubula River, that connection with Wahluu, that connection with the three brothers is important. They spoke with traditional authority, and Minister Ley, to her credit, accepted the section 10 application for the process and commenced consultation processes to protect it. She understood there was a cultural connection because she listened to the owners. She accepted that cultural authority doesn't lie just in a land council created under New South Wales legislation—cultural authority for First Nations mob comes from mob. It doesn't come from a New South Wales act of parliament; it comes from traditional owners and their connection to country, their links to country and their acknowledged elders. That's where cultural authority comes from.

Having accepted the section 10 application, Minister Ley quite rightly commenced a process of multiple rounds of consultation. An independent consultant was appointed, as happens under that act, and since October 2020, which was when the application went in, there have been six rounds of consultation between the Western Australian mining company that wants to put a tailings dam on this beautiful part of the river and the local community and traditional owners—six rounds of consultation. Minister Plibersek inherited that process. Again, to her credit—and I'm often critical of Minister Plibersek, who approves many coal mines and gas projects, and rejects many cultural applications—Minister Plibersek in this case did the right thing and continued the process that had been started by Minister Ley. She concluded the six rounds of consultation with traditional owners, the local community and the Western Australian mining company that wanted to build a tailings dam on the Belubula River. Having engaged an independent consultant and gone through that process, she listened and then determined to protect this one beautiful part of my home state on the Belubula River.

The process was fair. The process had six rounds of consultation in it. The process was commenced under a coalition minister in good faith. The process respected traditional owners that had been previously respected by Minister Ley. The process respected that cultural authority doesn't come from a land council established under an act of the New South Wales parliament, and that cultural authority comes from First Nations peoples. The process determined that this part of the Belubula River should be protected as important Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Then, what did we see? We saw the mining industry feeding these attack lines to the coalition—and with that, no doubt, feeding donations to the coalition—and then desperately trying to overturn this one case where a part of a mine was rejected because of Aboriginal heritage and culture. You see, for all the nonsense and talk about respecting First Nations peoples, and consultation, what really shits the mining industry—I withdraw that.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge—

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

I withdraw it.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind you to use parliamentary language and please withdraw.

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

I will. Do you want me to withdraw it a third time? I've already withdrawn it.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, if you can show some respect for the chair, I would appreciate it.

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

What really gets to the mining industry—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan?

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

You asked for the withdrawal.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did hear Senator Shoebridge withdraw

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

Did he? Okay, my apologies.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was happy to let it go, but if we could show some respect for the chair, I would appreciate it.

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

What really gets to the mining industry and the coalition is that there's this one case where Aboriginal cultural authority and Aboriginal heritage prevent one part of a mine going ahead. They can't believe it. Their spruikers in the Murdoch press and on Sky are appalled. How could it be possibly that, this one time, the system listens to some traditional owners who don't have the power, the resources or the money? How outrageous it is that, for once, traditional owners get heard and one small part of a Western Australian mining company's application to put a mine in New South Wales is actually rejected because, for once, the system listens to First Nations peoples over the money, power and influence of mining! They are so appalled by it. This is the same industry, of course, that just bulldozes, explodes and destroys Aboriginal heritage, as in Juukan Gorge. They don't seem to have learned. They're happy. But the very idea that a First Nations culture could once block one part of a mine so offends them.

Now they come in and say the only authority is the land council. What I find extraordinary about that is that you would think that, as legislators, they would have read the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which establishes land councils. Land councils are not established to speak for culture and country. I will just read it out:

The purpose of the ALRA—

the act under which Aboriginal land councils are established—

is:

They are not established to speak for country and culture. The people elected to the boards of New South Wales Aboriginal land councils represent all Aboriginal people in that area. Whether or not they have traditional connections to land, they represent every Aboriginal person who lives in their patch. Sometimes the members of those land councils do elect traditional owners, who have connection to country and can speak for country, but their authority to speak for country doesn't come from being elected to the board of the land council. The authority to speak for country comes from mob, from connection, from history and from culture.

What we get from the coalition is this simplified view that, because a land council may have gone from opposition to neutral, somehow that negates traditional owners. It just goes to show how little regard the coalition has for First Nations culture. It goes to show what contempt they have for the very idea that there might be authority—cultural authority and spiritual authority—that stems from 60-plus thousand years of continuous connection and occupation in this country and not from some act that the New South Wales Parliament passed in the early eighties. That's where traditional authority and culture comes from. When the coalition get up here and say 'the land council this' and 'the land council that', it just confirms the utter contempt the coalition has for any sense of First Nations independent cultural authority and the tens and tens of thousands of years of connections to this country, which are totally unrelated to some New South Wales act of parliament that was passed in the 1980s.

I want to end by remembering that it can actually work right, because the coalition's Minister Ley did listen to traditional owners and protected Wahluu. She did the right thing, and I credit her for it. Both she and Minister Plibersek, for once, listened to these same traditional owners and protected this one little precious patch of my home state and of their traditional country and culture. If we can do it right once, we can do it right again. Far from this ugly attack, it was a little spark of hope, and now the coalition wants to rub it out. What you're doing is disgraceful.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.