Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that since the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill was first introduced on 8 February 2010, it has been referred to the following committees:

(a) the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee which commenced its inquiry on 25 February 2010 and reported to the Senate on 22 June 2010;

(b) the House Standing Committee on Economics which commenced inquiry on 17 November 2010 and reported to this House on 12 May 2011;

(c) the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee which commenced its inquiry on 24 March 2011 and reported to the Senate on 10 May 2011;

(d) the House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry which commenced its inquiry on 15 September 2011, was due to report to the House on 2 November 2011 and is yet to table a report; and

(e) the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on 24 November 2011 with a reporting date which is yet to be determined;

(2) expresses its concern that despite the unprecedented scrutiny for a private Members' bill this House is yet to have the opportunity to vote on this bill;

(3) notes that Noel Pearson and the Cape York Institute have called for traditional owners of land on Cape York to have more control over the way the land is used; and

(4) calls on the Government to allow the members of this House to exercise their vote on this important bill.

This bill was first introduced on 8 February 2010. Since that time it has been referred to no fewer than five separate committee inquiries. First of all there was a Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry. Then there was an inquiry by the House Standing Committee on Economics, which inquired into the second bill in the same terms that I introduced after the 2010 election. It reported in May last year. Then there was a further Senate inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, even though it had, prior to the 2010 election, inquired into the bill. Then there was a House Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry inquiry. Finally, the most recent inquiry was by the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs.

That is five separate committee inquiries into a bill that is no more than five pages long. In fact, the operative clause in this bill simply seeks to ensure that Queensland wild rivers declarations should not apply other than with the consent of the relevant traditional owners. That is all my private member's legislation seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that Queensland legislation on wild rivers will apply only with the support of the relevant traditional owners. It is a very simple point designed to ensure that Indigenous land rights are real rather than simply notional. And there have been five separate committee inquiries into this five-page bill.

Plainly this government is trying to deny my bill as well as the vote in the parliament that it is so scared of. The government is trying to bury this bill and to bury voting on this bill in endless committee inquiries. I say to the parliament: this bill has been inquired into enough; bring it on for final vote, and do it straightaway. That is what should happen.

This is not a government that loves scrutiny. This is a government that has rushed some of the most important legislation through this House with almost no serious committee scrutiny. Yet this simple private member's bill has day after day, week after week and month after month gone through inquiry after inquiry of committee scrutiny. Well, we can see through the government. It is trying to procrastinate. This is yet another institutional go-slow. It is perhaps not quite as significant an institutional go-slow as the endless Fair Work inquiries into the Health Services Union. Nevertheless, it is of a piece with a government that tries to bury that which is not in its political interest.

I will say again for the benefit of the House that this bit of private member's legislation is incredibly important if this government's protestations on Indigenous matters are to be taken seriously. Let me repeat, as I have on previous occasions, the fine statement of the former Prime Minister, the member of Griffith, in this place in February 2008, on the day of the historic apology. The then Prime Minister said:

… unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.

The former Prime Minister was absolutely right. Unless the symbolism is accompanied by substance it is empty noise. My bill is an attempt to give that symbolism some substance. My bill is an attempt to give members of the federal parliament their chance to make land rights a reality, particularly for the people of Cape York, who do not want their economic development to be stymied by more bureaucracy, more green tape. That is the situation now under Queensland wild rivers legislation.

Let me also remind the House that on the very day that this national parliament acceded to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples the Queensland parliament, in absolute contradiction, was making various wild rivers declarations to take away the rights of Indigenous people. It is just not good enough. And it is not good enough that this government should try to bury this important bill under endless committee inquiries.

We all know what is happening in Queensland this week. It is the final week of the Queensland election campaign. We also all know the genesis of the Queensland wild rivers legislation. The Queensland wild rivers legislation was born out of a squalid Greens preference deal by then Premier Beattie, followed up by subsequent Premier Bligh. This parliament should no longer connive in a squalid deal for the Greens and against the interests of the Indigenous people of this country. By not allowing my legislation to be voted on this week, the Prime Minister is engaged in a cover-up with Anna Bligh of something which is vital to the economic interests of the Aboriginal people of Cape York.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has been in this place for a long time. He knows that if he wishes to make an accusation of that severity he should do so by way of substantive motion.

An opposition member: Sit down, you auto electrician!

A bit of elitism!

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just remind the Chief Government Whip that the carbon tax legislation, surely the most significant legislation to be brought into this parliament in the current term, was simply looked at by one single joint committee. There were 19 bills of carbon tax legislation and one single joint committee was given just 19 days to look at that shattering legislation. Here we have a tiny five-page bill that has gone off to five separate committees, which have now dragged on their inquiries for the best part of two years. It just is not good enough.

Let me make this point: this is a government, and a Labor Party, which is happy to pose as a defender of Aboriginal people until that pose runs up against the political interests of the Labor Party. We all know who is running this government. The real power in this government is not the Prime Minister but is, in fact, Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens. This is a Bob Brown veto that is being exercised over the parliament's consideration of my private member's bill. If members opposite had any real desire to do the right thing by the Aboriginal people of this country, they would say: 'Let us slough off the Bob Brown veto. Let us for once, just for once, put the real interests of Aboriginal people ahead of our political interests and certainly ahead of the political interests of the Greens and Senator Brown.'

To think that the understandable desire of the Aboriginal people of Cape York, who just want to turn their land into more than a spiritual asset, who just want their land to be an economic asset too, is being thwarted by the additional levels of green tape which have been placed upon it by the Queensland Labor government is just scandalous. Time after time, I have been approached by the decent people of Cape York, the Richie Ahmats, the Noel and Gerhardt Pearsons and all of the mayors of the Aboriginal communities of Cape York, who say, 'Please, do whatever you can to take this green-tape strangulation off us.' They want to do the right thing by their communities. They want to do the right thing by their people and see economic development on Cape York go ahead in ways which are consistent with maintaining the extraordinary environmental qualities of that marvellous area.

Do you think for a second that the Aboriginal people of Cape York, who have been the custodians of this land since time immemorial, would for a second do something that is going to prejudice the environment in which they live? Is that what this government thinks, that the Aboriginal people of Cape York are just waiting for a chance to despoil their environment? Shame, if that is what this government thinks. Of course the traditional owners of Cape York are not going to do anything which is inconsistent with the environmental amenity of their land. That is why we should trust them. We should trust them with the power that my bill seeks to give them. That is why this bill should go for a vote in this chamber this week.

It would be shameful if Labor members of this House, particularly Queensland Labor members of this House, were not forced to declare themselves on this issue this week. They should be forced to declare whether they are standing up for the Aboriginal people of Cape York or whether, rather, they are prepared to defer to Prime Minister Gillard and Premier Bligh in this sordid deal with the Greens. They should be forced to declare exactly where they stand, and that is why this particular resolution of the House is so important.

We have had a lot of sanctimony from members opposite over the years about the importance of Indigenous rights. I think that many members opposite are sincere in wanting to do the right thing by Aboriginal people. That is why it is so shameful that this government has conspired for so long to bury this important but simple and short piece of legislation in these endless inquiries. It is not too late for members opposite who care deeply about Indigenous issues to recover their decency and conscience on this issue and actually get this matter voted upon in this chamber this week.

The suspicion has to arise, if this government continues to bury my bill, that Aboriginal people are being used by the Labor Party, that Aboriginal people are being manipulated by the Labor Party. When you see what this government does, as opposed to what it says, you can understand Aboriginal people feeling that they have for far too long been politically used by the Labor Party rather than politically benefiting from the Labor Party. Just a couple of weeks ago we had the spectacle of the Labor Party passing over, yet again, one of the most distinguished Aboriginal leaders this country has produced, Warren Mundine. A former national president of the Labor Party, no less, and he was passed over yet again, this time for a failed state premier.

The time is coming when Aboriginal people will say: 'This is not good enough. We want to be properly represented by the political parties of Australia and by the parliament of Australia.' That is why this motion of mine is so important.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.

Could I also acknowledge in the gallery the participants in and winners and runners-up of the 2012 Simpson Prize. I particularly acknowledge Emma Kearney, from St Andrews Catholic College, who was a runner-up. Emma is from Cairns, in the electorate of Leichhardt. Congratulations to each and every one of you for a great effort.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the Chief Opposition Whip in acknowledging the people in the gallery he has identified.

Not surprisingly, we heard a fair bit from the Leader of the Opposition about this weekend's Queensland election. Maybe that gives us some guide as to what this motion is all about. The interesting thing is that it appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition is looking for some ownership of the Queensland election. Let us be frank with one another. If the polls are correct the Liberal National Party in Queensland will win on Saturday. And there is the Leader of the Opposition desperately trying to cling to that imminent victory and hoping to get some credit and secure some ownership. We should not be surprised given the way he is travelling in the polls.

The House will not be voting upon the subject of the Leader of the Opposition's motion this week, simply because on at least two occasions Senate committees have identified it as a bill with drafting flaws and with enormous implementation issues. I listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, and he would have you believe that the bill we are talking about today is the same bill he introduced in February 2010.

This motion is all about process. It is about the Leader of the Opposition's frustration that his wild rivers bill still has not come to a vote in this place. But what he does not tell members and those sitting in the gallery is that this is not his first bill or his second bill; it is his third bill. The first bill went to a Senate committee and was declared to be hopeless—full of drafting flaws and implementation challenges. The second bill also went to a Senate committee and they found the same thing. The third iteration of his bill went to a Senate committee and they were about to come to the same conclusion but Mr Abbott had the bill withdrawn from the Senate before facing the embarrassment of having it rejected by the Senate. So let us not have him come in here and say, 'What an outrage it is that since February 2010 I have been trying to get this bill through and I have been denied that opportunity because the government does not like my bill or there is a disagreement about the contents of the bill.' That is not true. We are still here debating the Leader of the Opposition's bill, in March 2012, because it is the third version of the bill and it has been rejected consistently by the Senate committee.

As the Leader of the Opposition complains, the bill has also been to House standing committees. Yes, it has but, again, it has been to different committees for different reasons. It has been to different committees because the Leader of the Opposition keeps changing his bill. We can only assume that that is a recognition that the various versions of his bill have been flawed.

But this is a motion about process, so let us talk about that. Members of this place, unlike many outside this place, are familiar with the Selection Committee process. It is part of our standing orders in this place and the agreement struck with the crossbenchers after the 2010 election. The committee, just like the Selection of Bills Committee in the Senate, determines which bills or motions submitted by private members will be debated and voted upon in this place. But the Selection Committee does something in addition to that. It determines which bills will be referred to House standing committees for inquiry. The opposition have been abusing this process, choosing to send just about every bill, including the appropriation bills, to a House standing committee. But, worse, they are doing so without identifying what they believe are the faults or even the strengths of the bills or which sections or subsections of the bill they would like inquired into.

I have with me a rather extraordinary statistic. In the 43rd Parliament—that is, this parliament in which we meet—81 bills have been referred to standing committees or joint committees. In the period between 1994 and 2010, some sixteen years, 16 bills were referred to committees. This is evidence that this system is being abused.

What is the outcome? It is that the House standing committees simply cannot do the work. They do not have the time or the resources to undertake all of these inquiries. It is simply impossible. They cannot possibly deal with every bill that comes before the House. And what has been the reaction of the standing committees? It took a bit of time but, understandably and predictably, the standing committees are now saying: 'Enough is enough. We cannot do 10 inquiries at any given time. We simply do not have the capacity or the resources to do so.' Here is where it gets interesting. The bill has been to two different House committees, I concede, but that is simply because the bill keeps changing and on this occasion the members wanted the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs to have a look at the legal side of this bill, which is known to have drafting flaws. The last time the selection committee referred this bill to a House committee it was unanimously agreed by committee members that the committee should reject the proposition that it should be required to look at this bill. Why? Because it does not have the resources. Dr Stone, Mr Vasta and Mrs Moylan were all part of that process.

The Leader of the Opposition came in here this morning to complain that the nasty government is running interference on this wonderful bill that he has had before the parliament since February of 2010. But the truth is that his own backbench is standing in the way of his aspiration to have this bill debated and voted upon in this chamber.

If we are going to talk about process, people in glasshouses should take care not to throw stones. In this hung parliament, the opposition has a hefty responsibility on its shoulders, as we saw this morning on the issue to do with the member for Dobell and pairing arrangements, and it should exercise those obligations and responsibilities sensibly. It is funny how these things often come back to bite oppositions when they choose to do otherwise.

I do not plan to say a lot about wild rivers and the substantive issue. Suffice to say, we are facing a Queensland election and there appears to be some connection, as indicated by the content of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition. But I am advised that traditional owners support the current policy. There does appear to be some link between the election and what is before us.

The government has made an unprecedented commitment to closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Economic development is at the heart of this strategy. The government is working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to build lasting change, change that will last beyond the next generation not just to the next election. This is a complex area of policy. What the Leader of the Opposition, out of political opportunism, is trying to do is to destroy the native title acts built over so many years by so many people just to satisfy some people who are on the political campaign trail as we speak. I note that Mr Newman, the putative Leader of the Liberal-National Party in Queensland, seems to be saying one thing in the electorate in Brisbane in which he is a contestant but quite another thing when he visits far North Queensland.

Today the Prime Minister is announcing a very significant skills package that will undoubtedly have positive implications and positive consequences for Indigenous Australia. While the Prime Minister is out announcing her big package, the Leader of the Opposition is in here throwing a tantrum and spitting the dummy because he cannot get his way; because he cannot get his flawed bill voted upon in this place when it suits him.

In the US and Europe tonight politicians will be stressed and talking about how they are going to deal with their economic crises and how they are going to find employment for their people. In the meantime, we here in Australia are talking about how to get people into the jobs that are available. In regions like mine, notwithstanding that unemployment is now around three per cent, sadly we still have pockets of stubborn high unemployment, particularly among youth. And we have employers, particularly in the non-mining sectors, who cannot find people to fill the jobs that are available. They are the things that the Prime Minister has been talking about this morning and they are the things that we should be talking about here today.

We should not be talking about the frustration that the Leader of the Opposition feels because he is unable to get his private member's bill voted upon. I remind him that he is in opposition. I know that he does not appreciate that much. Maybe he will get another turn in government one day—for the sake of all those working families out there, we hope not—and he will be in a position to change a system in Queensland which was developed in consultation over many years. He should not expect, as Leader of the Opposition, to change the world from over there. He should not get stuck into everyone out of frustration because he is not getting his way. He needs to reflect on the process.

Going back to the selection committee, it has been working very well in extremely difficult circumstances. I acknowledge that the member for Lyne is with us. He sits on that committee and does a very fine job. But I know that he gets frustrated from time to time as well. After a fairly shaky start, when combativeness was the order of the day, people settled down after realising that the best way to make the selection committee function properly was to work cooperatively for the benefit of the parliament and therefore the Australian people. I have to say that that has been ongoing. There are moments when things get a little willing and there are minor disagreements. But there is one constant that consistently undermines the cooperative spirit within the selection committee, and that is the crazy behaviour on the part of the opposition of sending just about every bill introduced into this place to a House standing committee, with all the consequences that that has for the parliament, the chairs of those committees and all the members of those committees.

I said through a media outlet this morning that largely because of the nature of this parliament—the fact that we are a minority government—this is the busiest parliament in the history of Federation. I have no doubt about that. No-one sees that better than me as Chief Government Whip. We on this side have the busiest backbench in the history of the Federation. The Leader of the Opposition has refused to allow coalition members to sit on the speakers panel—what a disgrace that is. We have a relatively small number on the back bench, which by definition is a consequence of minority government. There are more committees than ever before and we need more backbenchers from this side sitting on the Speaker's panel—as you are doing this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath—because on that side there has been another dummy spit: inexplicably, the Leader of the Opposition will not let opposition members join the bipartisan Speaker's panel. What a shot that is for democracy! In addition to that, the Leader of the Opposition has given instructions to the Chief Opposition Whip to send every bill to a House committee without any instructions for inquiry. There is no reference about the section of the bill or their concern with the bill and no recognition of the positives of the bill—just do it: 'Because if we can't run this place, we will wreck this place.' But that has come back to bite the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. That we are not voting on this bill of the Leader of the Opposition is a consequence of the way that those opposite have sabotaged the processes of this place over the last nine months.

Debate adjourned.