Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am anxious now to conclude my speech, but I will be very anxious to remind the opposition whip of his remarks on future occasions. The issues before us today are very significant, but they also have to be addressed in a practical manner. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005, in the first instance, provides for the state of Victoria to pass its own legislation with regard to Aboriginal heritage. One might wonder just where it will place the circumstances of a group of Aboriginals who, during the Commonwealth Games, chose to set up a camp in one of the principal parks of Melbourne, notwithstanding that they had never thought that a necessary activity up until the Commonwealth Games. I am not sure that it did anything for reconciliation.

I am interested in the opposition’s amendment and the words of the member for Grayndler. It is interesting that he—and I think properly so—wanted to give a significant focus to heritage. Heritage, of course, is often referred to as history. Yet there is a significant disagreement in this House on the teaching of history—whether it is a relevant matter and, to use the words of the Prime Minister, whether it should be black armband history. History is a matter of fact. Since the occupation of this landmass by persons of the Northern Hemisphere, there has been a fairly clear written record. Further, there has not been a written record of Aboriginal history. It was distributed by word of mouth.

As I have said, amongst my friends and acquaintances were fully initiated Aboriginal persons. It was not a large number. One of the points I have never forgotten was the time when one of those persons, fully initiated, said to me, ‘We never had sacred sites, but we did have sacred objects.’ They were carefully husbanded and protected. There were certain people, particularly women, who could suffer personal injury were they even to look at these sacred objects. We say they did not have a written history, but he pointed out to me how in fact the young people, prior to initiation, had to read boards—I have not seen them, but I assume they had symbols upon them—and to understand them.

One of my ancestors is recorded in a book called The Wreck of the Barque Stefano, in which an Aboriginal tribe eventually assisted two remaining survivors of a wreck. For those who have not read that book I would encourage them to do so because it is very factual. I think the Aboriginal people felt they could feed the two survivors, as compared to the other eight or nine who got ashore. The others died. The description in that story of two castaways is an extremely interesting commentary on the life of Aboriginal people before they had an influence from the European settlers—notwithstanding that they were then well settled in the Swan River territory.

The period in which they had to keep moving to follow the food trail was something which was almost too difficult for the survivors. I make that point because when an initiated Aboriginal tells you that they had sacred objects, not sacred sites, that is consistent with a people who were on the move. Reference was made to the Burrup Peninsula and a virtual mass of drawings. I assume—and I am quite happy to accept—that those drawings were done a long time ago. A lot of them are repetitive.

Whether there is an obligation on the Australian nation of 20 million people to protect every one of them is questionable in my mind. It is a view held by the state Labor government in Western Australia that some should be protected, and hopefully within the locality. That makes sense. But to prevent or discourage massive development of the associated natural gas industry, in my mind, does nothing in reality for the Australian people, be they Aboriginal or otherwise. Notwithstanding that this legislation is designed to possibly—and certainly in Victoria—further extend the role of heritage, I stand here to point out that Aboriginal heritage should be interpreted by people of Aboriginal extraction. I get quite amazed sometimes to read of Aboriginal elders who were bits of kids in Carnarvon when I was there and who are of significant Asian extraction being quoted in the media as Aboriginal elders with significant knowledge of Aboriginal heritage.

I support the protection of heritage and I strongly support the recording and teaching of history, but I am deeply concerned that these laws, produced with the greatest level of goodwill, have become an instrument that is sometimes used by non-Aboriginal people—and dare I say Hindmarsh Island—to prevent something that they do not want. I have visited Hindmarsh Island since its development. Once you observe what it is, you cannot advance any of the arguments that were put forward at the time. It is on the Murray River, stuck out over a relatively small stream of water. We know today that the drivers of that campaign were people who were not Aboriginal and who did not want development and were prepared to use arguments about Aboriginal heritage for the wrong reasons. It is extremely important that we do not.

The member for Grayndler chose to read for us components of a song. He talked about the strike at Wave Hill. I understand the desires of those people—Mr Lingiari and others—but, boy, I am not convinced that they gained very much. What did we, the legislators, do? We recognised their right to land and then locked them up in it. While they were on Wave Hill, the suggestion is that they worked for stores and rations. That was not correct. I am dashed if I know how those people who lived in communities on pastoral properties consequentially got cash to come to Carnarvon—in my case—and spend money in my hotel. They typically left their children back with the older people on the property. I do not know how they did that on rations. I do not know if they traded them when they came to town. They were paid and they lived in a reasonably safe environment, although not a salubrious one by our standards.

But what did they get when it was all over? They got rations. Unfortunately, one of the things they got was petrol. Yes, we pay them unemployment benefits and they spend those benefits at the local store and convert that cash to rations. That is a tragedy—and it has happened because of the goodwill of many people. Those people benefited little. In fact, the freedom that was referred to by the member for Grayndler was, in my view, for many of these people—and this has been well exposed in this place in recent times—a freedom to live in isolation and poverty.

There was not a person of Aboriginal extraction that I knew over those years who did not have English. I am not saying English is something special, but to lock people in with English as a second language or with no English is the greatest burden you can place on them. I have said the same when it comes to people coming to this country from other countries. However you want to interpret a requirement for them to have English to get citizenship, they need English for their own wellbeing in our country. It does not matter what your heritage is: without English, you cannot communicate and you cannot live a reasonable lifestyle.

Heritage is fine, but this law does very little for it. There has to be some definition of ‘heritage’. There has to be something that says what it is so that claims do not materialise every time somebody wants to develop a subdivision or makes the mistake—in my mind—of finding a mineral deposit within the Australian continent. You are much better off today trying Africa. That is silly. People who have genuine concerns about heritage should know about it. But where are we? The Akubra hat has become a piece of heritage, notwithstanding the fact that Aboriginal people did not wear hats. The other day I saw a woman welcomed to the country at a university. She was wearing a knitted hat with the so-called Aboriginal colours. A flag has no basis in Aboriginal culture—but it goes down pretty well with the Europeans.

So, if we want to talk about culture and about those things, let us talk briefly about property rights. When I suggested we should close down the so-called Aboriginal embassy and recreate it as what it was—a protest of great significance under a beach umbrella—suddenly I got all these letters from people telling me that every Aboriginal in Australia had the right to sit there around the fire. The Ngunnawal people did not agree with that. There is nothing more cultural in Aboriginal society than property rights and property boundaries, and it is time some of these things were recognised. (Time expired)

See this speech in context