Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very strongly support the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today in relation to the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011. The wild rivers bill was first introduced on 8 February 2010. It is now over two years later. There have been five separate committee inquiries into this bill. The first inquiry was held by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on 25 February 2010. Then it went to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics in November 2010. There was a further Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry in March 2011 and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry held an inquiry which commenced on 15 September 2010—and I know that in that case committee members were asking why this had been put to them and complaining that, in their view, it was an absolute waste of the committee's time and absolutely frivolous. It then went to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on 24 November. This is for a bill which is only five pages in its entirety.

All we are asking in this bill is for Indigenous Australians in Cape York to have the opportunity to make decisions about land of which they have been custodians for the last 40,000 years or more. But, in an effort to avoid going to a vote, the government continues to just dump it into one committee after another. It shows you the absolute lack of respect they have for Indigenous Australians. I often see the Leader of the House standing in here beating his chest about the number of pieces of legislation the government has got through this parliament. But it is interesting to note that, if anything comes up that they are not likely to get support for, they do not put it to the vote—I refer to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011. We are still waiting for that to be reintroduced into the parliament, as we are with the wild rivers bill.

The sad thing is that this is having a profound impact on people in Cape York, both Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people. This legislation was originally bulldozed through by the state government. They clearly did it because they were totally beholden to the Greens through the Wilderness Society and to shore up the exchange of preferences, particularly in the south-east corner of Queensland. We are seeing exactly the same thing from this current government. They are doing exactly the same thing. It does not matter what the impact is on the people living in this area. They do not give any consideration to the fact that these people have managed their own country now, as I said, for some 40,000 years. They have decided that what they need to do is introduce some sort of a motherhood policy which will do nothing more than patronise the local Indigenous population.

I can assure you that the Cape York community generally is absolutely outraged by what is happening here insomuch as it is robbing them of the opportunity to speak on the future of their own country. It is robbing them of the opportunity to consider economic futures for their children. Over the last couple of decades, there has been a real campaign, a real push, to enable Indigenous people to start to recover some of their own country and it has been very successful. Unfortunately, some of the largest leaseholders in Cape York are now in a position where they have no capacity whatsoever to make decisions in relation to the land—because of a grubby deal between the Wilderness Society and the state and federal Labor governments.

Another recent impact of this wild rivers legislation was the shelving of Cape Alumina's $1.2 billion bauxite mine at Pisolite Hills in Cape York. It had to be shelved as a result of the Wenlock River being declared a wild river. This project would have created about 1,700 jobs and 1,300 of those jobs would have been in Far North Queensland. Many of those jobs would have been in Marpuna, or Old Mapoon, a community north of Weipa. The project was also going to see the creation of a village in the area. Once the mining lease had been completed, the intention was for that village to be handed over to the local people as a lodge. That opportunity has been taken away from these people. This community, like many others in Cape York, have had to struggle for any sort of employment opportunities. It is an absolute disgrace that this government continue to treat Indigenous people in the manner in which they have been. We need to bring the bill on without any further delay.

In recent times, we have seen individuals from both state and federal governments going to Cape York and looking at buying support, if you like, through the rangers program. It is a bit like the old days of baubles and beads, where they offer a number of financial incentives to get individual family groups to come in behind them and support them, or to sign letters of support, and they are offered a whole range of financial incentives to do so. It is very cynical and it is creating a very false impression that there is much broader support for this legislation.

This motion is all about giving traditional people in Cape York an opportunity of having a say in their own future. It is not about throwing the legislation out. I hope that that will happen after this Saturday, 24 March. I hope and expect with a new LNP government in Queensland that the new Premier Campbell Newman and the very good state government representative David Kempton will keep their promise to the Indigenous people and to all Cape York people that they will throw out the wild rivers legislation and give the opportunity back to the local people to make decisions in relation to their own future and to be part of their own land.

They will also make sure that those people who have been engaged as wild rivers rangers will go into the national parks that have been acquired by the state government over an extended period of time—and operated without any management plans and of course without any staff. There will be lots of opportunities for these rangers to hone their skills and to start to control their land. Up until now, the management has been tokenistic on the part of both state and federal governments.

In conclusion, I think the state government will turf out the wild rivers legislation after 24 March. But we need the opportunity of bringing on the vote here before this parliamentary session is completed. I think it is only fair that we have the parliament make a decision on whether we can be committed to giving some level of support to Indigenous people and to do it in a transparent and practical way rather than the tokenism that we have seen in relation to Indigenous policy that has come out of this Labor government up until now.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Leichhardt referred to false impressions. If there is any false impression, it is being generated by those opposite. Quite frankly, it is outrageous that they suggest that it is because of the substance of the issue, that we have a problem with the way they have attempted to pass what they are proposing. On three occasions changes have been made by those opposite to this bill. All have been referred to other committees for consideration. This bill has been brought forward three separate times since February. Even though the Leader of the Opposition is quick to point out there have been five separate committee inquiries into this bill, he does not mention that they have changed the legislation on three separate occasions.

The government cannot support the Leader of the Opposition's motion because what is being proposed is plagued with a variety of drafting problems, as the Chief Government Whip indicated today, and with a series of provisional changes that all fail to simply address the real barriers to economic development in Cape York and western Queensland. Also, it is a bit churlish for the member for Leichhardt to suggest that nothing has been done to advance the issues of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when we have made significant commitments and harnessed all levels of government. Only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister delivered an update to our Closing the Gap strategy, which attempts to get all levels of government, regardless of politics, focused on these issues.

We are not going to have the types of problems that have been experienced as a result of those opposite being unable to put forward a sturdy bill to this place, and we are not going to have that dressed up as some sort of indifference to the issues of the people we are seeking to help. Each version of the bill has had different content and different clauses from those opposite, and each attempt has been riddled with serious drafting problems which have required close scrutiny. The Leader of the Opposition would have the people of Australia believe that this bill has been buried because of institutional go-slow. Every time a different version has come forward, it has to come up for debate.

Frankly, sitting on the Selection Committee I have seen firsthand the abuse of the committee's process. The standing orders introduced to this place subsequent to the 2010 election were designed to change the way we operate and to allow for greater scrutiny of bills. I for one am very supportive of that and I know there are others who are supportive of it. But you cannot have a situation where every single piece of legislation that is being proposed is referred to a parliamentary committee. This is not being done for the sake of scrutiny. This is being done as a deliberate act of vandalism by those opposite, who seek to frustrate the legislative timetable and process, all in an attempt to demonstrate—mistakenly, when you look at our record of getting legislation through—that the House is not working and not getting legislation through or that there are delays when, frankly, that is not the case.

For instance, another piece of legislation—the R 18+ video games classification legislation—was successfully passed through the House after 10 years of study and 54,000 public submissions—probably the greatest number of submissions received on a piece of legislation. The opposition had sought to refer that legislation to a committee yet again. After consultation with all the attorneys-general in the country, after going through COAG, after repeated studies and committee inquiries, at the last minute being referred again by the opposition. The only reason they relented was the realisation that this had been examined to the nth degree. They recognised—and I credit them for it—that it had been over-examined, and it had been allowed to be debated on the floor of the House.

Again, we have a situation where these processes are being abused. The consequence of this is that, if legislation such as we are debating now is proposed, it cannot be given adequate time because of the backlog of legislation inquiries being undertaken by the various committees. I see this, for instance, in the Standing Committee on Infrastructure And Communications, of which I am a member, where a number of bills are being rolled in for inquiry after inquiry after inquiry. I noted a few weeks ago that the member for Kennedy had circulated a letter raising his concern about resourcing of the Parliamentary Library—a serious issue. But what the member for Kennedy did not mention in his letter—and this is not a criticism of him, but it was noteworthy—was this: if committee workloads suddenly go through the roof because those opposite decide, not in the interest of scrutiny but of parliamentary tactics, to refer every single piece of legislation to committee, then the resources of the House come under pressure. We will see more and more of the type of things the member for Kennedy raised.

What are we supposed to do? Those opposite want to indulge in parliamentary tactics and force these bills through to committee. We are expected to tolerate that. This is an abuse of the process and we are seeing it here today, with those opposite chopping and changing their minds, unable to come up with the right clauses, unable to put a competent bill forward and then trying to mistakenly, wrongfully and improperly—

An opposition member: You're going to need a shower after this speech tonight!

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Chief Opposition Whip was heard in silence and the member for Chifley will be afforded the same courtesy.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It just comes with the territory. They cannot stand the heat of criticism of anything that they do, but we have to cop the type of contribution made by the member for Leichhardt tonight—and we are also forced to cop an abuse of the Selection Committee process and not say anything about it.

I think it is important that we find balance. I have absolutely no problem with the opposition referring bills that it believes need scrutiny. I think it is a good process and I think it is what we should do. But bear in mind also that the House of review is another place. This is the House that instigates the bulk of legislation and, more often than not, it is subject to public consultation. People have an opportunity to have their say. We, as House of Representatives members, have constituencies where we are required to deal with those very real concerns in a way that the representatives in that other place are not. We have to be mindful of balancing our representational role and our role in review. That is the problem that we have: all this legislation is being put through to committees for inquiry and it is putting a strain on the operations of this place.

From seeing the contributions of the opposition's representatives on Selection Committee, I might add that moderation has started to occur in recent times. We do not know if this is going to be something long lasting or if it is just a pause in the approach undertaken by those opposite. I certainly hope that it will be a fundamental change in the approach used by those opposite because the type of arrangement we have confronted to date is not sustainable.

Returning to the bill, I have discussed the abuse of the Selection Committee process by sending every bill through to committee without identifying upfront any of the bill's faults or strengths or any of the issues those opposite might actually want to inquire about. The first version of the bill we are debating was considered in February 2010 by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, which recommended it not be passed. The second version was introduced in November 2010 in this House and in February last year in the Senate. Each time, it was found that these were just rehashes of the bill and they simply did not cut the mustard. If we are going to undertake these considerations we should do so in a thorough way, but not in the way that is being proposed here today.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this sorry debate tonight, we see a government giving appalling explanations for their delay on the wild rivers legislation. We see these four Labor members representing their entire side of government—the members for Chifley, Shortland, Page and Fowler—and I do not even know if these four members have been to Aurukun. These four members would only turn up in an Aboriginal community if their plane ran out of fuel—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will return to the motion or he will sit down.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are four MPs who would only turn up in Aurukun, an area critically affected by this appalling legislation, if their plane ran out of fuel or there was a plaque to be unveiled—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bowman can stop reflecting on individuals and talk to the motion. I am over people using this time as a rant.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the only time you would see them turn up to understand the implications of this bill.

We are talking about the use of river catchments. We are talking about the economic impacts upon Aboriginal Australia and Cape York and, as was so eloquently put in Balkanu's submission to this very inquiry, the notion that this is wilderness and wild simply betrays the lack of understanding that this government has of the economic desire of the people of Cape York to have a real chance at a job and a real chance at joining the global economy.

But this is a government determined to back up their Queensland counterparts who, for the last five years, have lamented the lack of consultation around the Northern Territory intervention. But what consultation was there for this Wild Rivers Act in 2005? In January they came up with a parliamentary paper, in February an explanatory memorandum and by 24 May had rammed this through the Queensland Parliament, which has no upper house of review. That is that government's record of consultation. It is appalling. And, then—given just one chance by this opposition to remedy these errors, to take, as Pearson has said, the foot off the throat of people living in Cape York—we had this appalling diversion of this legislation, and, whatever the procedural excuses made by the speaker before me, an appalling delay of years and years.

Is this a government that cares about economic development? Do they care about the complex interplay between economic development, the environment and generational equity? Of course not. These are the principles of sustainable economic development, the principles developed by the world conservation union. We have seen them used in COAG. But no. This bill goes so much further, to rip away from Cape York residents, Aboriginal traditional owners—who are considered as nothing other than unrelated third parties under this legislation—the chance to join the real economy. Within a kilometre of a major waterway there is not even a chance to engage in aquaculture; not even a chance to build anything more than a fence, a track, a road or a fire break without justifying that that piece of infrastructure is both absolutely necessary and can be put in no other location. I mean, what chance is there of having tourism in Cape York under those circumstances?

We have vegetation management acts, through which this legislation is read, that virtually prevent a weed from being pulled, for Aboriginal Australians to have a chance of joining the real economy, generating real jobs and real enterprise. This flies in the face of all of the work done in the reforms to welfare, where we here in Canberra have reached out a hand and said, 'Join the real economy through positive social norms, through paying your rent, through building and owning your own home, sending your children to school and then having a chance to take your own traditional lands and generate some form of employment and economic activity.'

To have the last 8½ minutes of that 10-minute speech devoted to pallid excuses only reminds me that this Saturday, as Churchill said, the era of procrastination will come to an end. Your half measures, your baffling expedients—it is all going to come to an end this Saturday. We will have a new Queensland government. And if this side of the parliament does not have the heart to act on behalf of Aboriginal Australians then the new Queensland government will do that and they will unravel this grave injustice.

I do not care how many green groups say that the economy is not hurt by this legislation. The Aboriginal people are telling us that, and all we ask is that Aboriginal elders, through the bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition, can have a say in this dialogue; through the principle of subsidiary, give them a chance to have a say about their own land. But no. Thanks to this collaboration between Canberra and the soon-to-be-departed ALP government in Queensland, what we have is: standing up for green preferences, for the things that work in Ashgrove over the things that work in Cape York. And to leave Cape York exposed like that is a dreadful shame that this Labor government will bear. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion. The motion we have before us today is nothing but a political stunt. It is not about wild rivers. It is not about the motion whatsoever. And the contribution from the previous speaker showed to me that he had not read the motion. He said 'we have got one chance' to vote for and get this wild rivers bill through the parliament. Well, could I tell the member for Bowman: this is the third version of the wild rivers bill that the opposition has introduced between the House and the Senate. They could not get it right. The problem is that they have been unable to get their legislation right. Three different versions, each with different contents, and each with different clauses. One chance? Well, I think there have been three chances and I am still not convinced that they have it right.

The motion we are looking at tonight talks about delays in consideration of the wild rivers legislation. I put to the House that a considerable amount of delay has been caused by the opposition's ineptitude—the fact that they cannot get it right. The Leader of the Opposition is the person who sponsored this legislation that has been put to the parliament and which has been sent off to committees, because it really does need to be looked at. Any legislation that is obviously so inept and has needed to have so many changes obviously needs the highest level of scrutiny, and I have little confidence that the ad hoc changes that have been made along the way in this bill will actually fix it up. It is right that it be looked at by the committee.

The latest—and I emphasise 'latest'—bill was referred by the parliament to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for consideration. The committee has not yet reported on the bill and it is not appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to try to force this bill to a vote. He is trying to circumvent the process that has been put in place.

I might just share with the House, as a member of the Selection Committee, that members of the opposition constantly refer legislation to committees, and I am quite convinced that they do not even know why they are referring the legislation. I think that they just do it to delay legislation passing through the parliament. One piece of legislation that was referred to the Economics Committee and reported in this House was the mid-term budget appropriations legislation. If there is any legislation that is really examined carefully before it is put to the parliament it is that legislation.

This is all about playing politics—playing politics with Indigenous Australians. This is not about improving the lives of Indigenous Australians in Queensland; this is about playing politics with the lives of those Indigenous Australians in Queensland. This bill seeks to overturn the Queensland wild rivers regime and is pure politics—politics, politics, politics. We got an insight into those politics when we heard the member for Bowman talking about the Queensland election; the Queensland election is why we are debating this tonight in the parliament. This is bad legislation that has been poorly thought through. It has been sent to committees—and, I might add, three separate pieces of legislation have been sent to committees—because the Leader of the Opposition could not get it right. Well, if the Leader of the Opposition cannot get it right, that shows you the strength of those sitting on the other side of the parliament. This motion deserves to be thrown out of the parliament. It does not even deserve to be considered. I in no way support this legislation. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011, and I note that I have spoken in this place on this bill before. I used an adjournment debate to talk on this bill because of what I saw as a complete abuse of process. I saw the Labor Party shamefully playing politics with an issue that all Indigenous Australians have an especially strong interest in, particularly Indigenous Australians from Queensland.

The reason I became aware of what was occurring on this bill is that I am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry. This bill was referred to that committee by the Selection Committee. When it was referred to that committee, every member queried why it had come to us. Upon investigation it became very clear that the bill had been sent to us as a stalling practice—as a way of deferring its coming onto the floor to be voted upon. The Leader of the Opposition has introduced this motion today so that we can see where everyone stands on this wild rivers bill before the Queensland election. There is no doubt that if we get the right result this coming Saturday this will be the end of this issue. I think every Queenslander—and in particular all Indigenous Queenslanders—will be extremely grateful that that has occurred.

I want to return to the playing of politics with this bill. The Selection Committee has referred this bill not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five times to different committees. No other private member's bill in this place has been referred five times. The process was meant to enable the sun to shine in, was meant to put an end to petty politics and was meant to lead to being able to have substantial debates on issues of importance to members of this chamber. Instead, we have seen a blatant abuse of process by the members of the Selection Committee. That is why I am standing here, for the second time, talking about this. I used an adjournment debate to do it, but I was also very keen to support the Leader of the Opposition. His intentions in acting on this are because he knows and understands Indigenous Australia. It is absolutely shameful that we have not been able to see where everyone in this chamber stands on this motion. There is no doubt that those opposite are too afraid—are too scared—to vote on this bill because they would have to show their true colours on this issue, and they would be embarrassed to have to do so. That is why we have seen these appalling delaying tactics.

I want to mention the last few points of this motion from the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition. It notes that most recently the wild rivers bill was referred for a fifth time. It expresses concern that, despite the scrutiny that is unprecedented for a private member's bill, this House is yet to have an opportunity to vote on this bill. It notes the comments from Noel Pearson and the Cape York Institute in support of the cause and calls on the government to allow the members of this House to exercise their vote on this important bill.

I say: let the sun shine in. Let us have the vote before Queensland votes. I have no doubt that the Queensland people will do the right thing on Saturday and put an end to this draconian policy once and for all. But let us see where everyone in this House stands before that happens. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to respond directly to what the honourable member for Wannon said in his contribution, on two points. He is talking about what happens in Queensland on Saturday. What happens in Queensland on Saturday is not the reason I am talking to this particular issue before the House tonight. But on that point I can say that the Leader of the Opposition and the Queensland LNP are all over the place when it comes to wild rivers. The Queensland LNP have said that they would overturn wild rivers declarations in Cape York but 'have no plans to repeal or replace any of the wild rivers declarations in western Queensland'. That was from 'LNP safeguards Wild Rivers', a statement from Andrew Powell MP, shadow minister for environment, 15 Feb 2012. So, before the honourable member for Wannon comes in here with wild accusations, it is better that some of the facts get put straight.

The other issue that I want to address was raised in the contribution by the honourable member for Bowman when he impugned me and my colleagues who were speaking here tonight for laying claim to righteousness in matters pertaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and issues. That is a big claim for anyone, and I would caution him to think very carefully before he makes such a claim. The honourable member for Bowman also impugned us by way of saying that we had not visited certain communities, as if that were somehow a test and that we lack understanding because we have not visited certain communities. Again, without going too far down that track, I would caution him about making such unsubstantiated claims. It really is a spurious accusation without substance. When you are reduced to arguing like that, you are not really addressing the issue at hand.

The other issue relates to the honourable member for Wannon and his statement that this bill has been referred five times. This bill is actually three bills, with one subject matter, in different forms. Yes, it has done the rounds of referrals and it has been referred to various committees, but it keeps changing. It is the third version of the wild rivers bill that the opposition has introduced. Between the House and the Senate, there have been five goes at the bill. There have been three different versions of the bill—each with different contents, each with different clauses and each with significant drafting and operational issues. A previous version of the bill has already been rejected by the Senate. Despite this, the Leader of the Opposition is pursuing his current version of the bill, and this latest version should be subject to higher scrutiny. It is a complex and significant area of law and it should not be dealt with in an ad hoc way.

There have been a lot of comments on both sides of the chamber tonight about politics. Yes, politics does feature in this place and sometimes we hurl it across at each other as though that is rather surprising. It is not surprising, because there are substantive issues to deal with here with wild rivers, but there is a whole lot of politics around this, and that is what is being played out here at the moment. That is why this bill requires careful consideration by a parliamentary committee.

The bill also goes to the nature and the heart of native title. That is something that took a lot of years to get a framework and laws around, which processes and issues were to be developed, and it is something that would be better dealt with other than by way of a private members' committee. However, it is our right as members of parliament to do that.

The bill, in its latest version, was referred by the parliament to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for consideration. The committee has not yet reported on the bill, as I understand it. It is not appropriate at this stage to try to force the bill to a vote before the committee has reported—and, yes, that can happen in this place. To force the bill to a vote is not appropriate—it is unprecedented and shows some disregard for the processes in this place. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee considered this bill and its report identified a range of drafting and operational issues and recommended that it not be passed. (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier today we rightly reflected upon the life of Dame Margaret Whitlam, who tragically passed away quite recently. In doing so, we also reflected upon the life of her husband, Gough Whitlam. When you think about Gough Whitlam and some of the enduring images of his tenure as Prime Minister, one of those images was from when he was out in the Northern Territory at Wave Hill Station pouring the local dust out of his hand into the hand of the local elder Vincent Lingiari. It was symbolic of the beginning of land rights for Aboriginal people, and an important piece of legislation was passed a year subsequent to that. Today, Mr Lingiari's brothers from Queensland could well come back to this place with that sand and pour it into the hands of Julia Gillard. Such is the nature of the wild rivers legislation, which winds back the clock in relation to Aboriginal land rights.

People have been fighting for land rights for decades. They have been fighting for land rights, and I emphasise the term 'rights' because it is not just about having possession of the land but also about having use of the land and full ownership of the land, with all of the rights which go with it. The wild rivers legislation diminishes those rights. It is the first piece of legislation for a very long time in which those rights have been diminished and it is a disgrace that it is coming from this Labor government.

The motion in front of us here that we are debating is simply asking that we have a vote on a bill which says that no river will be declared wild unless the traditional owners of the land give their consent. That is all we are asking for. We are just asking for a vote to be held. We are not rushing the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill at all. In fact, this bill was introduced into this parliament over two years ago. In that two years we have had no fewer than five inquiries into this bill. This is not a long piece of legislation. It is only five pages and there is only one substantive piece to the five pages. That substantive piece says that if a river is to be declared wild, which has the effect therefore of reducing the use of the land in that river basin, that declaration must first have the consent of the traditional owners. It is a very simple proposition. It is a very simple one to understand. We are talking only about Aboriginal land itself here, so what is the problem with this piece of legislation? What is the concern from the other side of this chamber in relation to giving traditional owners consent, giving them a say over what they want to do with their land? Are those opposite seriously concerned that, after 50,000 years of looking after their land, tomorrow they are going to destroy it? Is that what they are concerned about?

If that is their concern, they should come in here and state that. Even if Aboriginal people do want to develop their land, why should they not have that right, just as we have the right to develop our land? Why should they not have that right? That is what those opposite have fought for over the last few decades. That is what Gough Whitlam was doing when he passed the sand into the hand of Vincent Lingiari. It was symbolising that, 'Mr Lingiari, you and your people now have possession and have the full rights of this land.' I think that if Gough Whitlam were looking down on this chamber today he would be disgusted by the acts of the Labor Party, because they stand for nothing. For decades they fought for the land rights of Aboriginal people, but today they wind back the clock and discard those values. The reason they do so is the grubby deal done with the Wilderness Society for preferences in Queensland in the upcoming state election. So when it comes to a challenge between the interests of the Labor Party and the interests of the most disadvantaged people in our community, who does the Labor Party side with? They side with the Greens and they side with their own grubby interests. It is a disgrace. We need to have the vote now.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to a couple of comments that the member for Aston has just made about the views of the Whitlams. My response is that I suspect that you are absolutely wrong about what their perception of what is happening in this parliament would be. They would be applauding and supporting the government on the stand it is taking on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011. More specifically, I want to respond to the comment that the member for Aston made which implied that this is 'a simple proposition where all we need is the consent of the traditional owners'.

Let me tell you about a simple proposition relating to the consent of traditional owners, and that is the matter of the uranium waste facility proposed for Muckaty Station. That was a 'simple proposition', using your words, whereby the Howard government sought the consent of the traditional owners to select the site and received that consent, and the matter is now before the Federal Court because it was not a simple proposition. In fact there is a debate taking place right now about who the traditional owners are, so do not for a moment let the House believe that these are simple matters. They are anything but simple matters and that is exactly why this piece of legislation needs to be properly scrutinised.

When it comes to dealing with Indigenous issues in this country, the record shows that they are never, ever simple. They are always complex and there is always a multiplicity of views in respect of whatever the issue is. If nothing else it should teach us a lesson that, when we are dealing with Indigenous issues, we need to carefully consider what we are doing and consider the recommendations that we finally come to.

It is interesting that this motion is being debated tonight, less than a week out from the Queensland election. It is interesting in listening to comments from members opposite how often they have referred to the Queensland election in respect of this motion. It simply highlights that this motion is not about the substance of the bill on the wild rivers that is before the parliament; it is purely a political stunt, using this parliament for political opportunism to create division in the communities in Queensland prior to the Queensland election on Saturday. That is all it is about.

As other speakers from this side of the House have quite rightly pointed out, this is the third occasion on which the Leader of the Opposition has drafted legislation on this matter. The member for Aston said, 'It is only simple legislation that is five pages long.' If it is only simple legislation that is five pages long, why has it taken him three efforts to try to get it right? On the first occasion it lapsed because we went into an election in 2010; fair enough. On the second occasion it did not lapse, and I understand that that piece of legislation is still before the Senate. It has never been dealt with, yet the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to produce a third piece of legislation, and members opposite question why the legislation has been referred to 'one committee after the other'.

It has been referred to one committee after the other because, firstly, we have had three different pieces of legislation to deal with and, secondly, members opposite cannot get their own legislation right. Yet they expect members of the House to walk in here and accept this legislation or support it or rubber-stamp it—whatever it is they expect, I do not know. The reality is that this is indeed complex legislation which quite rightly has been referred to one of the House committees. The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs is currently looking at it and that is the right thing to do, and this House should not make a decision on the legislation until that committee has dealt with the matter. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Climate Change—

Debate adjourned.