Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4860:

(1)    Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Public and independent review of the repeal of Part IIA of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

I highlighted during my speech in the second reading debate a number of concerns received from Aboriginal community members in Victoria about the adequacy of Indigenous consultation, the involvement of Indigenous communities in the drafting of the Victorian legislation and the manner in which it excludes some traditional owners and some Aboriginal organisations from decision making. It may in fact override their ongoing role as traditional custodians of their heritage.

The Greens do believe that there should be uniformity of legislation across states and territories. However, we are concerned about the manner in which the Victorian legislation will meet expected standards. Bearing in mind the comments made by Senator Carr about the inadequacies of the federal act, I accept those, but I do not think two wrongs make a right. I am not confused about the Victorian legislation. There are strong community concerns about the adequacy of this legislation. We believe that, even though the federal legislation is in no way adequate, the federal government and the Commonwealth have a responsibility to ensure that adequate standards are met for heritage protection.

We believe that if the Commonwealth is not prepared to hold off this legislation in order to check to see if the Victorian legislation is adequate, there should be a review of the legislation in two years. Therefore, we are proposing this amendment to have a look at whether the legislation does in fact meet minimum heritage protection standards. The amendment puts in place a requirement for a review. It also puts in place a review committee which includes people with expertise in Indigenous heritage, representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and people with knowledge of Indigenous cultural systems. We believe that such a review would be useful in developing better heritage legislation at both state level and national level.