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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Duniam, move:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2025:

(a) the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at the federal, state and territory levels in blocking development and locking up our country on the basis of race, with particular reference to:

(i) the declaration by the federal Minister for the Environment and Water regarding the tailings dam of the McPhillamys Gold Project under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984,

(ii) the declaration by the Victorian Government through Parks Victoria with respect to rock climbing on Mount Arapiles in the Wimmera region and in the Grampians National Park,

(iii) the closure of Mount Warning by the New South Wales Government,

(iv) the proposed closure of Kate Thanda-Lake Eyre by the South Australian Government, and

(v) any other similar declarations;

(b) the effect of any proposed, potential or existing Treaty agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws; and

(c) any other related matters.

We are moving this motion for the Senate to refer various matters to the Environment and Communications References Committee for an inquiry and report. Those matters include the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at both state and federal level in blocking development and access to land on the basis of race. It also includes an examination of the effect of proposed, potential or existing treaty negotiations and agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws.

There are many reasons why this inquiry is needed. One of those reasons is due to the increasing evidence that our current legislative scheme allows cultural heritage laws to be used to block critical infrastructure and development projects. One of the most stark examples of this, of course, is the Blayney goldmine decision. In August this year, Minister Plibersek made a decision under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. The declaration had the effect, which she well knew, of stopping the development of the proposed McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales.

It was a terrible decision on many fronts. It, of course, made a mockery of state-level planning processes, given that the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission had already approved the project to go ahead. It was based on bad evidence. Despite the Albanese government's resistance to release the material, we finally know that the minister did and, perhaps more importantly, did not consider it before making the declaration. We know that the key opponent weaponised by the EDO to oppose the project used to be on the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and did not identify as Aboriginal at that time. There was also much disagreement about her recognition and acceptance by Wiradjuri people themselves as a member of their community. Her evidence included her own paintings, which allegedly depicted the area in question as well as a supposed blue-banded bee dreaming. We also know that Minister Plibersek did not seek the advice of independent cultural heritage experts to verify the legitimacy of this dreaming story—surprise, surprise! Further, this dreaming story was denied as legitimate by the Wiradjuri present at a meeting of New South Wales land council representatives last month.

While I'm speaking of the land councils, the decision was also bad in that it disregarded the opinions of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who has authority to speak on matters of cultural heritage. The decision also undermines certainty for investors at home and abroad who would otherwise be willing to invest heavily in these major projects. It diminishes our attractiveness as a region to be invested in. Why would anyone want to pour millions of dollars into a project that could easily be stymied at the last moment? Investors cannot have confidence that they won't be left out in the cold at the last minute even when they have complied with every permit or planning process.

The decision was bad in that it fuels activism—case in point being the newly created specialist legal department of the Environmental Defenders Office. This team is meant to assist Indigenous Australians who want to make cultural heritage claims. But let's not forget, when justifying her decision, Minister Plibersek said that if we want to protect cultural heritage, then occasionally we have to make decisions like this. I can tell you that the establishment of this new legal team within the EDO proves that they have no intention of keeping these occurrences occasional as the minister suggested. Why else would the EDO devote a specialist team to assist people making these kinds of claims unless their aim was to exponentially increase these kinds of claims being made? The EDO are in rabid pursuit of shutting down development, and decisions like this only add fuel to their destructive, antidevelopment fire.

The Blayney goldmine clearly demonstrates the inadequate nature of our current cultural heritage laws. Despite all of the criticisms listed above, the legislative framework is set up to allow the minister to make decisions like this. That's why we need an inquiry into the operation of those laws, including their particular operation in the case of the Blayney goldmine.

Aside from stopping development, this motion also seeks to inquire into the operation of cultural heritage laws on decisions that are locking up land away from the public. The most recent example of this comes from Victoria. The Victorian government, via Parks Victoria, is proposing to prohibit rock climbing in the area of Mount Arapiles. Some estimate that up to half of all the climbing routes on Mount Arapiles will be closed. In 2020 there was an interim protection order made, which denied access to an area of Mount Arapiles. The order was made under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act and was the first of its kind. The order was allegedly put in place to protect, among other things, culturally significant rock art motifs. Most of these rock art motifs cannot be seen with the naked eye. Instead special equipment is required to even observe this remnant of cultural significance.

Perhaps more concerning in this case was the consultation—or lack thereof. The Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network was established in light of the bans, and their 54-page report was relied on by Parks Victoria. This report was allegedly from a rock climbing perspective but the report has not been released, so we don't know what it actually says. The cultural heritage assessments have not been released either. Why the secrecy?

Further, the Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network have themselves confirmed that they did not help climbers and, further, that they did not act on behalf of the climbing community or claim to act in consultation with the climbing community. They have been unapologetic about the fact that they have a relationship with traditional owners, not rock climbers. They admitted that their sole role was to help the Barengi Gadjin Land Council in their understanding of climbing at Mount Arapiles. And, yes, this is the organisation Parks Victoria relied on to prove that there was a balanced consultation process—surprise surprise! The Victorian government has failed to appropriately consider rock climbers or the economic impacts of these closures.

Let's be clear. Rock climbers usually—and in this case specifically—care deeply about the environment and about protecting what they have around them. Why wouldn't they? Rock climbing in this region generates a significant amount of money. There are small communities like Natimuk that will feel the impact deeply. Places like the local Pines campground would also likely have to be closed as a result of climbing bans. A spokesperson for Climbing Victoria estimated that about 90 per cent of the visitors to Mount Arapiles were in fact rock climbers. Mount Arapiles is a world-known rock climbing location and its status as a destination to visit is quickly diminishing because of these bans. These are the kinds of places we should be showcasing to the world instead of restricting them so much that the surrounding communities end up shutting down.

We've also seen the closure of the summit track at Wollumbin National Park. It was initially closed in 2020 due to COVID. However, the closure was extended by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service not only due to safety concerns but also due to the cultural significance of the mountain to the Bundjalung nation. Before it was closed it attracted over 100,000 visitors per year. The ongoing closure is estimated to have cost $50 million to the region. In 2022 the management of the site was given to the Wollumbin consultative group, which is made up of various Aboriginal groups, but the claims of cultural heritage made by the WCG have been disputed by some Indigenous people, such as Sturt Boyd, the son of the last keeper of Mount Warning, Marlene Boyd.

There are allegations of some claims being nothing more than a modern-day invention, not dissimilar to what we have seen regarding the claims of the dreaming at the Blayney goldmine site. As well as issues of cultural invention, we again have issues of accountability and transparency in the case of Mount Warning. People like Mr Boyd, who has long-standing ties to the mountain and is a Ngarakwal elder, has not been allowed to participate in the consultation process or know who is attending these WCG meetings. We must ensure our consultation processes are robust, accountable and transparent.

Finally, this motion also seeks to investigate the impact of treaties which are progressing or may be developed in states and territories on cultural heritage laws. Aside from treaties being at odds with the wishes of the Australian people, they also introduce a lot of unknowns. We don't know what impact treaties will have on these cultural heritage laws and vice versa. Ultimately, these treaties should not be progressing, but, given they are, at the very least, we need an inquiry to understand their ramifications. Minister Plibersek herself said that it is possible to both protect cultural heritage and have development. It is ironic because, despite her acknowledging this, she is not actually doing it. She is placing too much weight on cultural heritage claims when they are paper thin in their legitimacy and evidence. We need a legislative framework in this country that truly promotes balance.

Of course, if we really want reconciliation, we need a framework that appropriately addresses cultural heritage while also encouraging development and sharing our incredible places and spaces with each other and those who visit from abroad. I've always said—my elders have taught me—that, if you are born in this country, you belong to it. You too share the dreaming spirit of the creator ancestor of this land, and that should be shared amongst all Australians. That makes us all custodians of this land. That is what true reconciliation means in this country.

But it is not ideal to the Left. It's certainly not an ideal concept to the Greens and Labor, this government who would not like to see Indigenous Australians have any kind of economic development opportunities or economic independence but would rather that they remain in their stagnant positions, dependent on welfare. But what better way is there for people to get to know this lucky country than to actually let them come and see and access it for themselves? If we do not take a commonsense approach to these matters, we will end up locking up anything and everything instead of benefiting all Australians.

So, yes, Minister Plibersek, we can have both. We can have a lot, in fact. We can protect cultural heritage and the environment. We can promote development and investment. We can enjoy, celebrate and share everything our wonderful country has to offer instead of creating classes of people in this country that can block off land and access to something that should belong to all of the Australian public. But, in order to have this, we need to revisit our frameworks, especially our cultural heritage laws. That is why, of course, my colleague Senator Duniam and I are moving this motion today.

In the spirit of this country, with the separatism that's been pushed onto us by this government and their coalition partners in the Greens, we need to step away from separatism. We need to treat all Australians equally for the benefit of us all. For the benefit of our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we need to end the separatism, we need to stop antidevelopment, we need to stop locking up land and we need to celebrate who we are as a country together.

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

I rise to speak on this motion. The Greens will not be supporting the motion brought by the coalition—no surprises there. This is an attempt to, I suppose, whitewash Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country through the claims that have been made again and again and again about the EDO and activism and how it's all wrapped up in this conspiracy. I wish there were some days that the people on that side would listen to themselves—play themselves back. Play your tapes back and listen to what you've actually said. It is absolutely conspiracy theory, because your views are not shared by other First Nations people across the country.

I've said this before, standing here. The northern Australia committee's First Nations cultural heritage report called A way forwardhow about you go have a look at that? How about you go and read up on the journey that we took to listen to traditional owners across the country talking about the destruction of their rock shelters? I know that there are coalition people sitting here in this chamber—we don't have to agree on everything; we don't have to agree on that. But the connection to country, whether you want to deny it or not, is about identity, and our connection to that country is about the ngurra where that stands—the ngurra that shows people that we have been here for 65,000 years. You might not want to hear the truth-telling that is at the heart of that. You can whitewash that all you want. You can try and do that. We already see that in the education system, in schools where kids are still being taught about 1788 and that Captain Cook discovered it. Well, terra nullius disproved that. Eddie Mabo disproved that through two High Court challenges.

Still we see people bring motions into this place to try and do that—to ensure that we just open the floodgates to development and the destruction of this land, this water, this country and our connection to it. As long as I'm here in the Senate, for the next three years, that's not going to happen, because I will keep fighting. You may label that as activism. I don't care. But we are going to stand on the front line and put our bodies on the line, like we've been doing for many, many generations. Our old people are the giants whose shoulders we stand on, who have been fighting for land rights all of these years and fighting for country.

I want to go to the heart of some of the points that Senator Nampijinpa Price made in her speech just a minute ago about the investors and how they can be ripped away at the last minute. Wow. I wonder how much Regis Resources and other investors around the country are paying for those comments.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cox, you will withdraw that. It's an imputation of motive.

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

I withdraw. I'll rephrase my comments to say that investors' wishes are put before traditional owners. Well, guess what? We're constituents, we are now citizens of this country and we too have rights. It's not about capitalism. It's not about putting money first. I know it is for some parties in this place. I know that that is your view, and that's your prerogative. But investors must listen. Investors have a guide already around business investment.

Investors know this, yet in my home state of Western Australia they want to flout the rules. We're a mining state, and they love to get around them. In fact, they wound them back because of the pressure of the coalition during the Voice referendum. You must have been clapping your hands about that one. Our cultural heritage laws went so far back that they went right back to the Dark Ages, where you could get a section 18 and you could blow up caves. You could continue to ram through mining trucks and destroy our country with little to no impact and no consciousness that you are drilling into the soul of First Nations people by doing that. You have no consciousness. That's the sad bit about all of this.

People can stand in this place and say we should just let investors and developers clear land. Who cares about that? Well, we do. Our 65,000 years of culture, history, language, people and connection to all of that are about our skies, our water, our country, our cultural practices and our totems. Before all of this technology came along we actually had our own sophisticated systems. We actually were able to follow kinship systems, the totemic systems of marriage, to make sure we didn't mix our bloodline. But since what happened 200-odd years ago we've now been developed and indoctrinated into thinking that we just let people through the floodgates. Let's open it up because that's exactly what this motion says. It says let's just open it up and unlock the land because, according to this motion, we're locking up every piece of land in this country. Well, I don't think that's true.

I know that my colleague here Senator Shoebridge made a wonderful contribution yesterday about McPhillamys goldmine in his home state of New South Wales and what that means. We can fan off a list of places and of orders that have been issued across Australia. That's because the law of the land actually existed before colonisation. I'm not here to give everyone a history lesson, but clearly we just have to keep saying the same things over and over again. It's like the definition of madness in this place. No-one understands why there is a protocol. No-one understands that the rock art that exists at Murujuga is the first handprint in the world. There is law and culture connecting that land, which was part of the desert before. There is a songline there that connects a trade route that people have walked for thousands of generations. But no; let's just open it up! Let's give it to the gas companies, according to these mob on the right side of the chamber. You want to talk about transparency and accountability? Let's have that conversation. Most of these companies don't even understand what that looks like.

Every Senate estimates—Minister McAllister will vouch for this—I'm on the opposite side of the table asking questions about cultural heritage and saying: 'Where are the new laws? When are we going to be there? Are they drafted yet? Are we further down the line?' I know Minister McAllister tells me, 'We're still consulting.' For three years, we've been in this hold pattern, but we're not going to make a referral to the environment and comms committee so that we can continue to have conspiracy theories batted around by the coalition.

Let's talk about treaty; let's go there. Treaties are about settlement. Treaties are about reconciliation. Treaties are about getting us a fair deal because we were invaded and colonised. I don't know how many different ways it's going to take for us to keep saying that. The truth-telling—which, again, the coalition asked questions about in question time yesterday—and the makarrata commission will help you all to get educated. It'll help you to understand through the truth-telling why it's so important to have a treaty. In my part of the country, there are actually two treaties already. Two settlements already exist in Noongar country and in Yamaji country. In fact, it was the settlement brokered through the Barnett government, a Liberal government in WA, that did that. It's a treaty. It is an agreement, and every single day across this country there are agreements which unlock land for development.

You might want to do your homework in relation to Indigenous land use agreements and what they actually mean, because, while you're saying that a treaty is not progressive and isn't about reconciliation, it actually is. It's about reconciling the nation and giving us a fair deal, because the land and resources in this country belong to First Nations people. Of course we want to share that. Of course we want to contribute to the GDP of the country. If Senator Price participated in the JSCATSIA economic inquiry that's already been happening, she may have heard some of the evidence that was quite clear about economic development for our nation. You cannot continue to come into this place and say, 'They just want to keep people on welfare.' That's not actually true. In the inquiry, there was substantial evidence around business development and economic opportunities for First Nations people across the country. Now we have a draft report about that, and I'm really happy, because it shows people how progressive things have been when we actually work together and get this done.

One of the biggest areas of contribution to economic development in this country is tourism. Do you know why? It's an export service to the world that we, as the world's oldest living, continuing culture, contribute to. We're able to showcase that every day. Australians should be proud of that. We should share that. We should share that our nation is so proud to be part of the oldest living culture in the world. We can showcase that through tourism. I'm proud to have the tourism portfolio, where I can encourage our tourist operators across the country to work hand-in-hand with First Nations people. They're already doing it. They're already creating economic pathways across this country.

But they don't have to destroy country. They don't have to destroy the water. They don't have to stick in a tailings dam in order to achieve that. They're doing wonderful things. In my home state of WA, that's exactly what they're doing. The Tourism Council WA even provide a cultural tourism award. This is such an amazing, amazing venture and is a joint partnership that goes into the heart of how we can reconcile this nation if we walk together—but we have to tell the truth first. And the truth is where the transparency and accountability will come from, not this slapped together motion. 'Let's have an inquiry and then make sure every investor and every corporate and developer in the country can come in and talk about how they're being stopped.' They're not being stopped. This group of people just want to remove the red tape. They've already said that. They have, as an election platform, 'Let's remove all the green tape, all the red tape and even the black tape, now; let's remove it all and just open the floodgates, unlock all the land'—so everyone can just bulldoze their way through it and destroy it.

Well, you know, in our part of the country, our communities can't even drink their water because it's already contaminated. Nitrate, uranium, gold tailings—it's all there, and this is the destruction that it causes. There is the poverty that continues—one of the highest rates of poverty in the OECD, in a high-GDP country like Australia. You only have to go to the town of Roebourne, 40 kilometres away from one of the biggest ports in our country, that exports billions of dollars of iron ore every day—and yet, just across the road from that, Murujuga can't even be protected under section 10, cultural heritage, and we heard that today in question time when Senator Thorpe made that statement.

It is an indictment on this place when we get people bringing in motions like this. They want to continue to deny the truth, to continue to push the barrow that investors are getting a raw deal. What—because they're getting pulled up about cultural heritage? They already have a booklet. They already have the regulations—the laws, even—that dictate that they're not supposed to do things without free, prior and informed consent and that they are actually supposed to consult communities. And they never do—in some of those instances, they never do. They send an email and make a few phone calls. That's what we heard in the Barossa case, because that's what they did to the Tiwi Land Council: they made four phone calls and sent two emails. And Senator Duniam knows that; that's why he's smiling right now, because they know that the EDO made sure that the full Federal Court knew that that's what Santos called 'consultation'.

Now, this is where, on the protection of our cultural heritage, the rubber hits the road, because you're saying, 'No, no, no'—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Senator Cox, I remind you to address—

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

'This is not happening. We're getting hard done by'—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, I'm speaking. I remind you to address your comments through the chair, not directly at people across the chamber.

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

Yes. Thank you, Acting Deputy President. But this is a continuation of all of that. It's the continuous attacks on the EDO and on activism in this nation. We are never going to be quiet and we're going to keep active.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion today because Australia is being divided by race, because of these claims over land that belongs to all Australians. In particular, I want to talk about Mount Arapiles, because that is a rock-climbing mecca amongst rock climbers. Rock climbers from all over the world go down to Mount Arapiles. I myself spent a week down there, back in 2005, where I climbed a lot of the routes, like the great Bard, which is one of the world's great beginner leads; I did all five pitches on that. I think it's an absolute disgrace that places like Mount Arapiles and the Grampians are going to be locked away from people who want to enjoy nature. Rock climbers take a great deal of care. The Arapiles is trad; there are a few bolted higher-grade climbs, but most of the Arapiles is traditional climbing, so there's no damage to the rock.

People have been climbing on rocks for thousands of years. As to the idea that someone got here first, I'll quote former prime minister Bob Hawke, who said, 'There should be no hierarchy of origin in this country.' And yet here we are, trying to divide access to Australia's great natural beauty and its environment by race, based on this notion of the oldest continuous culture, when there's actually no recorded history, prior to a few hundred years ago. We've got something like 300 Aboriginal languages, so that would clearly indicate that there were different waves of immigration throughout the thousands of years that people have been moving around the planet.

So the concept that Australia is any different to what happened in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas in terms of people moving around is absolutely absurd. We cannot continue to keep talking about the past. We know that First Nations Aboriginal people were colonised, but colonisation has brought many benefits, and it's extremely hypocritical to be criticising colonisation when Aboriginal people enjoy the benefits that colonisation brought with it—things like running water, clean water, shelter, protection, energy, electricity, education in terms of writing. All of these things have lifted the standard of living not just for Aboriginals but for all people. Two hundred years ago the standard of living across most of the world was nowhere—even the wealthiest people's standard of living was nowhere what it is today—so why are we continuing to divide people by race and by history?

If you want to talk about 200 years of persecution, come and talk to the Celts. We got persecuted by the Romans in BC 53. There was the great Vercingetorix at the battle of Alesia, Boudica and the Iceni tribe in Great Britain, and the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes in the fifth century. The Angles are known as the English because of the great vowel shift in the 16th century—for those of you who are wondering who the Angles are. The Normans came and gave us a touch-up again in 1096 in the 11th century, and then we had another 100 years—but we had the Vikings turning up and doing their raids throughout the eighth and ninth century. Then we had the Normans, and there was a good 100-year-war there that went on for a very long time. I must say the British turned around then they started going around and building their empire, but they had a good touch-up with the Germans again in World War I and World War II. In amongst all that were the Irish, which some of my heritage stems from. They were practically starved to death their homeland in the 1850s, which is part of the reason why I'm here. The idea that any particular race has a monopoly on persecution is absolutely absurd and it needs to stop.

By all means: I'm happy to acknowledge the Aboriginal culture and I accept that there is culture here, but we have to accept that we're all here now and we all have to live together. I do not want to see beautiful places like the Arapiles, the Grampians, Mount Warning—which is just down below the Queensland border. These were mountains. Human beings, regardless of their race, heritage or culture have been climbing mountains for years, and we need to enable people to climb these mountains because that's what we do. That's what human beings love to do. I'm sure we all go and put our nose to the grindstone throughout the working week but I went down to Mount Warning. I've climbed many mountains— Mount Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, Mount Karisimbi in Africa, Mount Paradiso and the Three Peaks. I love mountain climbing, and I know many other thousands of Australians like mountain climbing and rock climbing, and to think that tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands of Australians—are going to be locked out from accessing our great natural beauty and our national parks is an absolute outrage. It's an absolute outrage, especially when the state governments who are locking these people out aren't even disclosing the reasons they are locking people out.

The government is here to serve the people. It is not there to tell us where we can and can't go. These things are in national parks. They were created as national parks so that people could access them. It just goes to show the mentality of governments today versus the mentality of governments of yesterday that they're now trying to cut people out and deny people the right to access their own public land. It's an absolute outrage and it has to stop. We need to support this motion. I don't even know why we need an inquiry—I'm happy to have one, but to be quite frank, the state governments need to pull their heads in and allow all Australians to access national parks. By all means, we should treat any cultural sites with respect and make sure we protect those areas, but it doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater by locking people out altogether.

The other thing I'll touch on is the goldmine. Yet again there needs to be due process. Regis Resources spent something like $190 million on trying to get environmental approvals for that mine, which the New South Wales government gave them, only for the federal government to then turn around and deny it on cultural heritage grounds. This is the problem we've got here: if the federal government want to do that, are they going to refund the $190 million that Regis paid to the New South Wales government? Are they going to refund that money?

If the federal government is going to override what is effectively—under the Constitution the environment is technically the responsibility of state governments. Or at least it was until Bob Hawke used 51(xxix) to undermine the plenary powers of the states on the Franklin dam decision. He basically said if the federal government signed any treaty with another power, foreign country, it could override the plenary powers of the states. And this is the long-term consequence of this—that is, we now have the federal government kiboshing just about any project that wants to take place, especially with regard to dams. We've had one dam built in Queensland since the Franklin dam decision, the Paradise Dam just next to Bundaberg there, and it had to be pulled down because the state Labor government at the time didn't build it properly.

Civilisation is based around the ability to control water. If you look at the great civilisations of the world—the Indus Valley, the Mesopotamian Valley with the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Nile, the Yellow River, the Yangtze River—they are all based around irrigation from the great rivers. These early civilisations are based around what they call the great flourish of the Neolithic period. We have to be able to cultivate water and yet environmental and cultural treaties are being used to block progress in this country. If we're going to have a rapidly increasing immigration rate, you have to be able to build more dams. You have to open up more mines to generate more royalties to pay for the infrastructure that is going to accommodate these people. We're not doing that.

We have power stations that are coming to the end of their lives that aren't being replaced. In Queensland, the big mining companies there are saying they're not going to open up any new coalmines, so we have a declining royalty revenue base. But we also have an increase in population. So we have extra government costs but less government revenue. That is completely unsustainable if we want to live a high-quality and prosperous life.

As I said, I'm happy to protect genuine cultural sites where they need to be protected. I spent a week climbing the Arapiles—I probably did about 20 climbs—and I didn't see any Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. I'm not saying they weren't there, but they weren't evident at the time. We don't want to close down things. It's the Arapiles today; it'll be the Blue Mountains tomorrow; it'll be Frog Buttress at Mount French in Queensland next.

There is a big rock climbing community out there. I rock climbed for five years. I lived and breathed rock climbing for five years. It's another one of those worlds within worlds where you don't really know it exists unless you're in it, but when you're in it there's a great big mecca. I know people who have basically given up their jobs and lived on the smell of an oily rag just so they can climb day in, day out. I'm a bit too old for it now, but I'm certainly going to get my sons back into rock climbing when I manage to finish whatever I'm doing and I retire. I want to be able to take them down to the Arapiles. I want to be able to take them to the Blue Mountains. I want to take them down to Mount French and Frog Buttress, down at Boonah. And I want to be able to take them to Flavours afterwards, which is one of the great cultural practices of the rock climbing community in South-East Queensland. I don't want to see these things stopped because if my children aren't out there in nature, rock climbing and bushwalking, they're going to be on iPads. I don't want them on technology. I don't want them living and breathing technology, I want them out there seeing the natural beauty of the world, and not just here in Australia but in other countries as well.

I strongly recommend that we support this motion because it's very important that all Australians have access to our beautiful country. It's very important that we can get on with developing this country in a way that is going to ensure prosperity for future generations.

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

I think it's important to remind ourselves that we are simply debating a motion to have an inquiry into a matter. On at least one occasion in this debate, it sounded like it was a lot more. But it is purely a motion before the Senate to send a matter off to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee to inquire into matters that a number of speakers have spoken about—that is, the operation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at the levels of government in which they operate. I don't know what's wrong with inquiring into laws that many in this country perceive to be broken or in need of beefing up. There is no reason for us to not have scrutiny on an area of law that is quite topical at the moment for a range of reasons.

It's also worth pointing out, as Senator Cox mentioned in her contribution earlier, that this government promised new standalone cultural heritage laws to replace the outdated and broken ones we have operating in this country now. The act—insofar as it pertains at a federal level to the McPhillamys goldmine in Blayney, which I'll talk about at length during my contribution—is 40 years old. It predates land councils, and it predates native title. It is out of date and not fit for purpose. But that is the piece of legislation that the minister has relied upon to make a declaration.

The government's tried to squirm away from this by saying: 'It's only a partial declaration on part of the site. It is not a measure that kills the mine.' In fact, if you talk to anyone that knows anything about mining, they'll tell you that if you can't have a tailings dam, you can't have a mine. The thing will not proceed. We don't need to go into the details about that, but the point is that we were promised that the cultural heritage laws would be replaced, fixed or made fit for purpose to ensure that we don't have terrible outcomes like the ones we've seen here—which are rightly being appealed by the proponents of McPhillamys goldmine—and to ensure that those sorts of situations don't arise ever again.

This is an opportunity to assist the government to get these laws right. At Senate estimates, a week and a bit ago, we were able to interrogate the officials in charge of this very slow-moving piece of work. Again, as I say, there was a promise that we would have laws in this parliament, passed during this term of government. There is no sign or hope of that happening at all. When I asked the officials where things are at, as did Senator Cox, the response I got was: 'Well, we're working with stakeholders to figure out what the problems are. We're trying to understand what needs to be fixed.' I cannot believe, nearly three years on, that we are still trying to figure out what the problems are. It was urgent off the back of Juukan Gorge. It was urgent to reform the laws to ensure that those things never happened again. It was urgent to ensure that First Nations people have a voice when it comes to protection of country. But now—well, we'll do it after the election; we'll kick it off into the long grass. I'm not even sure that this government will promise to address these broken laws after the next election. It was a promise before—they've failed; they've not delivered—and of course we're left with the situation we're in now. We do not know whether it will remain a priority or whether the government was just paying lip service to certain groups in our community ahead of the last election

I remind senators that this is just a motion to establish a references inquiry into broken laws, to ensure that we have a better system operating in this country, and to provide guidance and advice to ensure that we can actually get things right for all, not just some, in our community. This inquiry would enable the government to get some much-needed information to hurry up this long, protracted and ridiculous process.

As I said before, these laws are outdated, from 1984, and predate all of the other arrangements and processes that have been put in place around matters for First Nations—native title, land councils—to try and give effect to a robust regime, to ensure protections do occur. Is it perfect? No. There will always be work to be done, which is why we need to reform these laws and replace the 1984 act.

We make a point, as I did earlier today in response to a terrible decision by this government to double down on the appalling decision to not overturn Minister Plibersek's decision around the McPhillamys goldmine. We can tinker around the edges with the Future Made in Australia Bill. We can tinker around the edges with other programs and measures, spending allocations within budgets to try and generate productivity. We can tinker with the environmental approval laws. We could make them the best laws in the world.

But, in effect, section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is so open-ended that anyone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage anywhere in the country who fears for the desecration of a particular piece of land to which there is connection anywhere in the country can make a written or oral application. There is no limit to that. It can be anyone, anywhere, anytime, provided those measures are met.

The problem with the process—the laws as they are set down—became very, very evident in Senate estimates. It is, in fact, borne out in the section 10 declaration signed by the minister. I refer senators to paragraph 6.33 of the minister's statement about the making of the declaration, where the minister says:

I note that the reporter—

that is, the section 10 reporter, an anthropological expert, someone who knows what they're talking about and who was picked by the government to do this report—

expressed the view that the evidence at the time of the Section 10 Report did not provide a basis for concluding that the specified area—

that is, the area that they've now said that, under this declaration, is not fit for having a tailings dam—

is of particular significance to Aboriginal people.

It does go on to note that further evidence was provided by the applicants that made the section 10 application. None of the evidence that was tendered later on, over a four-year period, and there were multiple versions of information presented, went back to the section 10 reporter—the appointed expert, the person with anthropological and cultural heritage expertise—to enable them to make a determination.

Instead, we had the officials, who are doing their job, abiding by the law, telling us senators that this is perfect and that this system is working as it should. We had six rounds of consultation and procedural fairness. Hang on. No, all they did was seek further information from the applicant, and then they said: 'We found this does not have cultural heritage significance.' The applicant went away, looked for something else, found something else, brought it along, went back to the proponent and said: 'Can we test this with you? Does this make sense to you? Does this claim of Indigenous cultural heritage make sense to you?'

They kept bouncing off the applicant and the proponent for six rounds. At no point did the government go back to the appointed expert to test any of this. None of it went back past anyone who would know anything, beyond the applicant and the proponent. The bureaucrats in the department acted as judge and jury in this open-ended process. That is not right. This is why we now find ourselves watching legal proceedings unfold relating to the McPhillamys goldmine. I will watch with interest how these laws are tested.

But the fact is that it is open-ended. Anyone, anywhere meeting the criterion under the act can make a claim. That means there will be investor uncertainty, and that is a bad thing. Investment in our country is not a bad thing, nor is seeking people to come and make a choice to invest here, where we have good environmental laws and regulations at a state and federal level. I will echo what others have said, which is that this mine proposal had every single state and federal environmental approval required met. It was approved. They'd spent, in acquiring the site and going through the processes, $192 million getting to this point.

Despite going through all of those robust processes, including cultural heritage processes through the state planning schemes, this act was activated and weaponised, frankly, as even some in the government have said. There was an article recently in the Australian newspaper, where it was stated:

Senior government sources have also revealed they have witnessed an increasing use of section 10s—

that is, these applications under the ATSIHP Act

to try to stop projects after all other avenues have been exhausted.

That says to me that there are people in government that know what is going on.

There is a suggestion that investors have a guide—not when, out of the blue, out of nowhere, with no robust process occurring under these laws, this can happen to a mine proposal that has been in the works for five years and has had nearly $200 million spent on getting it up and to the stage where they should have been digging a hole in the ground, extracting resources and generating royalties revenue for the state of New South Wales for hospitals and schools and creating 800 jobs. To suggest that somehow they have guides, when they are blindsided by this—that is not a good legal framework for governments to be making proponents go through.

There was a lot of emotive language used in Senator Cox's contribution—and I understand that—but, again, all we are doing here is seeking to set up an inquiry. The Greens have an amazing way of using words to inflame things, to conflate things, to make people think that things are worse than they are. To try and weaponise things like this and to try and suggest that—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox.

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

Acting Deputy President, I would like Senator Duniam to withdraw that comment trying to impugn my reputation and my contribution to this debate.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, he didn't refer to you personally. He was referring to the Greens.

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

He actually did. He referred to me directly.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cox, I'm pretty certain he didn't because I was focusing very carefully on what he was saying. I'm certain he did not—

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

I'd like you to review the tape.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to ask for the tape to be reviewed. Senator Duniam, you have the call.

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

As I was saying, the Australian Greens have this amazing capacity to try and tap into people's emotions and avoid fact and science to get a certain political outcome. That's what they're in the business of doing. The basis of what has happened here is so flawed that it is almost laughable, and we would be laughing except for the fact that 800 people are now without work and the state of New South Wales has less money to pay for schools and hospitals because of activists that want to undercut our society. If you're an investor looking at where you might park a billion dollars, would you want to go through this process only to be knocked on the head by spurious claims from activists who tap into emotions rather than deal with fact? You wouldn't. You'd go somewhere else, where there are worse environmental outcomes.

We're supposed to be global leaders. This is the thing—the Australian Greens love to push things over the horizon so we don't see it. We feel better about not mining here, but we're happy to have the life dug out of certain countries where they have no environmental regulations. This is the by-product of their 'shut it down, lock it up and oppose projects at all costs' approach to the world. They are not doing the right thing by our country in opposing this motion. It is important to have a look at these laws. Senator Cox herself has been asking where the new cultural heritage laws are. I'd love to know. An inquiry might tell us a bit more than we know already, which is nothing because the government have done, as far as I can tell, diddly squat. So I have no idea why we would not have a discussion about these things and enable everyone on every side of the debate to come and have their say. That's what democracy's all about.

To suggest that Senator Nampijinpa Price is on her own in these views—well, what about Roy Ah-See? He's a Wiradjuri elder, and he has some real problems with what's happened here. Maybe he's on the wrong side of the ledger too because he doesn't agree with the Australian Greens. What about the members of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council? They have a problem with what's happened here. Their community—their people; their mob—have been denied economic empowerment by a group of people they don't agree with who frankly, if you look at what the minister has done, have had an immense impact on this community. So to suggest that Senator Nampijinpa Price is on her own is frankly wrong. It is important for us to be able to interrogate these laws at a state and federal level to understand why the government have not acted. In the interests of all Australians, it would be great to ensure that we get the laws right moving forward.

It was also interesting to note, of course, the defence of the EDO, an organisation which, frankly, I cannot believe the government continues to fund after the evisceration by the Federal Court judge Justice Charlesworth. This activist organisation is now setting up a specialist arm to go around looking for cultural heritage claims like this, as reported recently in the media, to try and stop them. This goes back to my point about the government sources' concern that section 10 is being weaponised. Why would we give them money, through the taxpayer, to enable them to do more?

I'd also love to know where the EDO gets most of its money from. I don't think it's local. I have real concerns that the EDO has been getting a lot of funding from overseas in recent years, and that would be great to see. Perhaps the EDO might table those documents for us given they are a recipient of taxpayers' money. To write off other's concerns as conspiracy is exactly what the left do. They do it all the time if you have a concern. All we are asking for is an inquiry. A bit of truth-telling would be helpful here. Let's see what's said, let's see the truth, let's see the facts and let's get these laws right; let's have an inquiry.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senators Nampijinpa Price and Duniam be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, because it is after 6:30, the division is deferred until tomorrow.