Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The wild rivers debate has been going on for some time now. I have already informed Senators Xenophon and Fielding and those opposite about our intentions with regard to the legislation today. The fund­amental aim of this legislation is to create some equity and consistency in the approach of the Queensland government with regard to the provision of conservation, particularly on Aboriginal land of all types. One of the most celebrated conservation outcomes in North Queensland has been the creation of quite large national parks under Premier Bligh. Many of those areas contain some particularly fantastic biodiversity and the creation of those parks was something to celebrate. Aboriginal people sat down for a very long time and discussed how they would conduct joint management of the parks.

It was similar to what happened with Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory, where I come from. An agreement was reached for joint management of the park. The landowners, the Aboriginal people, would sit down as a board and have joint management of the park and Aboriginal people would be able to advise the park managers, who at that stage knew lots about conservation but little about cultural heritage or about the way that Aboriginal people interacted with their land. Then, at a later stage, as they became more confident, the Aboriginal people in the area gradually took a greater role in the bureaucracy and board. I think that Kakadu park is in fact emblematic of how it should be done.

Two examples in Queensland, in the area around Coen, are celebrated because of their now excellent conservation practices. The particular element to be excited about is not so much that it represents some of the greatest biodiversity in the world; it is the fact that Aboriginal people provided their consent. If you are creating a national park in Queensland and you are changing fund­amentally all of the ways of doing business, you need to understand that consent is absolutely fundamental to that process. Sadly, the wild rivers process in Queensland was approached differently by the Queensland government.

The region of Coen, after going through a very long process that took a couple of years, ended up with a celebrated result that protected biodiversity and ensured that all of those people involved had complete ownership of it. That deal involved joint management. All of the issues—including how many rangers were going to be involved, how the management process would work, how access would occur, how Aboriginal people would continue to conduct cultural activities, how they would interact with tourism and how they would grow in stature in terms of being able to manage the park—were resolved, setting the groundwork for the future.

This is, of course, in stark contrast to the Queensland wild rivers process. As a piece of legislation, wild rivers is not particularly different to any other conservation legis­lation, but the principles still apply. We believe it is an area of unique biodiversity and so we aim to apply protections that specifically protect that biodiversity. Wild rivers relates specifically to particular areas of biodiversity that have been identified. It is just like a national park. I commend the act in its treatment of most of the areas it covers in Queensland. I think that it is a good act and that some of the measures in it will be excellent. The reason that the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management Bill) 2011—my private member's bill—has been brought forward is that there is one stark difference between a national park in Queensland, which provides good conservation outcomes, and the Wild Rivers declaration in Queens­land, which also provides good environ­mental outcomes: one is provided with the consent and ownership of the owners of the land—the Aboriginal people of the land—and one is not. That is the only difference and, whilst it seems like a small difference, it is a very important difference, particularly to the people of Cape York.

One of the reasons the Wild Rivers legislation is of interest to the people of Cape York is that they are in fact the holders of land which, without argument, has some of the most wonderful and complex biodiversity in the world. That is why it remains a tourist attraction, and that is why the world's eyes are on places like Cape York—it is emble­matic of the remnant perfect biodiversity. It has been maintained in that state by the Aboriginal owners—the principal form of title there is native title—and the reason it is in that state is that the owners have had a connection with that country for so long. They are the reason that the biodiversity is so excellent; they are the reason that this country has been looked after so well. That is why a joint management agreement, which in a sense says, 'This is something that we can gather and this is something that we can ensure will be a fundamental building block of how we continue to look after the biodiversity,' would be so appropriate for Cape York.

Why would you ignore the single group of people who have protected this iconic biodiversity since time immemorial? In the national parks we do not; in the national parks in Queensland we have a system that completely acknowledges the role of the Aboriginal people who built those levels of protection. But, sadly, in the Wild Rivers declarations there is no such acknowledg­ment of their attachment to and association with the land. It should be no surprise and no wonder to anyone that the entire Aboriginal people of the cape apart from a very small handful—I have not met more than I can count on one hand—find the Queensland Wild Rivers legislation odious since their consent is not required. This is not conser­vation by consent, as it is with those very successful and celebrated national parks, but conservation by diktat—something you will have!—and I do not think that anyone in Australia is in any doubt that, given the circumstances, we should be supporting a change to the Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland that puts into effect the very same mechanisms that they have in, for example, national parks.

I have approached the Queensland government, as have many, because it is not the normal way for the Commonwealth to do business to intervene in a state. I can tell you that, coming from the Territory, I find it particularly odious that we should do so. But this is a circumstance that is so very important that we have made many calls on the Queensland government to change the Wild Rivers legislation. I ask myself: where is the mischief? Premier Bligh is a fine woman, and I am sure she means well.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't go over the top.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I am sure she means well because I have read her media reports about the celebrated deals that were done with the national park in Queensland. Isn't it fantastic that we have Aboriginal people on their land working side by side for conservation outcomes? I know Premier Bligh celebrates that, but neither she nor anyone else in Queensland has been able to answer me when I ask: 'Why is it that we would have this inconsistency? Why the difference in the Wild Rivers legislation, under which we simply make a declaration over that land and there is no consent required?' Instead, there is silence. Some as cynical as and more cynical than me would say, 'After all, the Premier is a politician.'

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's called Green preferences.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard about the Greens deals. Greens preferences are important.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was at a West End coffee shop before the last Queensland election.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been alleged that coffee was involved. Those of us who are a little bit cynical have accepted that there are special arrangements concerning the Wild Rivers legislation. But why would you have special arrangements? We already have arrangements in place that work: empowerment; working next to Aboriginal people who know how to look after the land because they looked after the land well before white people stood on this land. The only reason could be that they have simply done a deal.

We know about the Wilderness Society and those associated with it—they have produced some very good outcomes and are trying to protect the environment—but I think that we have lost touch with the balance. The balance for Premier Bligh was to say to the Greens: 'I need your pref­erences. What would you like in exchange?' Clearly, the exchange from Premier Bligh was, 'We'll go and have Wild Rivers.' The question would then have been, 'What is Wild Rivers going to do?' and Premier Bligh's answer would have been, 'It takes a little time to deliver national park-like mechanisms because we have to have the consent of people; we have to have people agree.' The response to that would have been, 'No, we can't have that in it.' So the legis­lation was passed with a lot of opposition—though not, obviously, with sufficient opp­osition—but without the inclusion of the notion of consent. The people of Cape York have not held this land for very long as a national park—in that sense it is still young land—yet this Wild Rivers legislation, only because of some grubby Greens preference, has a substantially different approach to how we go about a partnership approach for conservation to the approach found in other conservation legislation. It is still not too late, Premier Bligh; it is still up to you. You can change your own legislation to make it consistent with your approach to national parks. You can still do this. All the people I have spoken to across the cape wish to embrace the opportunities for conservation. They want to do that. We have got examples all over the place of that. But there should be that simple respect of saying that we will require the consent of Aboriginal people. That is exactly what the Wild Rivers (Envir­onmental Management) Bill 2011 would ensure. It is simply to ensure that Aboriginal people are fully involved, that we can get the full benefits of the wisdom of the Aborig­inals and that we get their consent—which is just about respect.

Those in the gallery and those in the chamber will recall that the President this morning rose and said that we would also like to acknowledge the Ngunawal and Nga­mberri people of the Canberra area. That is all about respecting the ownership of land. Sadly, in my view, the Queensland govern­ment, or elements of the Queensland govern­ment, have certainly been disrespectful in the way that they are treating Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of land and are owners of land in Queensland, in this matter.

That is the motive behind this bill. It is a very simple motive. Clearly, as I have indicated, I do not have the support today, because there are still some concerns with the bill. We will be speaking to a number of people to ensure that we have the amend­ments correctly, because this is such an important area of consideration. I under­stand, Senator Furner, that you had a great interest in this. Look into your heart to see whether there are other appropriate amend­ments or whether you can ring the premier yourself. If you want to do some real good for the people of Cape York—and I know you do, mate—you need to reach into your heart and do the business of ensuring that the Queensland government does the right thing.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to speak to the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 as a whole at this stage, as I did not speak during the second reading debate. The objective of this wild rivers bill is to circumvent the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005, which allows the Queensland minister to declare an area to be a wild rivers area. The effect of the Wild Rivers Act is to enable the Queensland government to make wild river declarations that limit the range of activities that may be carried out in a decl­ared area of land in order to preserve the natural value of that area. The bill before parliament today seeks to change the way in which a wild river declaration is made, tak­ing the power from the Queensland minister and putting it in the hands of other interest groups.

Since the debate on wild rivers last year I have had the chance to look at some of the wild river declared land firsthand. I have also listened to the lengthy debates from both sides of the argument and have considered the arguments through the inquiries. The more that you look at the issues, the more you realise that there are two valid and opposing arguments. Firstly, I think that some areas of this country do deserve to be protected. I am not in the camp of locking things up for the sake of it. But, equally, I am also not in the camp of bastardising the environment. Some areas of this country are special and ought to be declared as special areas in order to safeguard and preserve these areas. Under this bill, a wild river declaration can only take effect if it has the written consent of all the interested parties of the land. The practical result of this will make it extremely difficult for any wild river declarations to ever be made. This, I think, is a problem in itself.

This problem arises because of the def­inition of 'owner' in this bill. That definition of 'owner' means that a wide variety of people and groups may fall under the def­inition of owner for a particular area of land. For example, it includes people with native title interests, freehold interests, leasehold interests and other interests, too. This means that, in order for an area to be declared to be a wild river area, every one of these groups that falls under the definition of 'owner' needs to give their consent for a declaration to go ahead. To put it another way: it means that every single person or group that falls under the definition of 'owner' gets an auto­matic right of veto on a wild river dec­laration. As an example, even if eight parties affected by a wild river declaration agree to give their consent, the declaration can be nullified because of the opposition of just one party. This hardly sounds reasonable. What it really means is that the likelihood of ever getting an area to be declared as a protected or a preservation area is extremely slim. I have spoken to some members of parliament who support this bill because they do not believe in creating preservation areas and are happy to see nearly every part of the land developed. That is something that I do not agree with.

The second point I want to make is that there seems to be a lot of confusion within the communities that new development is not allowed in a declared area. This is simply not true. For example, the following types of development can still occur: tourism, eco­tourism, development of associated infra­structure, grazing and pastoral enterprises, residential and commercial developments, commercial fishing and fishing based tour­ism. However, I do recognise a real problem, and that is that people are put off from doing any development because they do not know how to wade through the entire permit app­roval process and because it looks way too hard. I believe that this is a real problem. Many people who do not have the resources to jump through all the hoops, the paperwork and the bureaucratic red tape end up missing out.

Particularly within many of the Aboriginal communities there are development plans that are never made because people within a declared wild river area do not feel that they have the resources, the money, the time, the administration or the know-how to overcome the hurdles standing in the way of the developments. This needs to change. Just like there is legal help for people who cannot afford legal representation, so too we need a type of free professional service to help people who want to do development in these areas but do not know how to navigate the approval process. This is something I have raised directly with the government and I am pleased that these concerns have been listened to. As a result, the government has promised to provide funding to establish a professional services resource that will help Indigenous Australians move forward with their plans for development in areas that have been declared wild river areas.

The third point I want to make is that before a Queensland minister can make a wild rivers declaration there needs to be adequate consultation with the people aff­ected by any such declaration. In fact, if you are going to limit the range of activities that can be carried out on an area of land then you should have to ask the people who have a stake in the land what they think. It is clear from the inquiries into this bill that the level of consultation that has occurred thus far has been substandard in some areas. It is not enough for the Queensland government to pay lip-service to the consultation process. They need to actually sit down and speak with the people who use the land and take into account their legitimate concerns. There are plenty of people out there with very reasonable concerns and it is important that we listen to what they have to say. This is something that I have raised directly with the Queensland government and the federal government because it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I am pleased to say that the Queensland government will be establishing Indigenous reference groups to improve the consultation process. These Indigenous reference groups will provide information and recommendations to the minister on natural values, economic asp­irations and consultation processes. This information will need to be taken into consideration by the minister, along with other advice such as scientific advice, when defining the areas. These reference groups will provide legitimate and representative input to the Queensland minister. It will give parties a greater voice in the decision-making process of any declared areas.

Finally, this wild rivers issue is very difficult. I am sure that both sides of politics would agree about the tremendous difficulty in balancing environmental interests with those of landowners and development inter­ests. After considering all of the information, and given that the federal government has agreed to fund a professional services resour­ce to assist people with getting an application for permit approved, and given that the Queensland government will establish Indig­enous reference groups to ensure proper consultation, I will not be supporting this bill.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate in committee. I commend the contributions that have been made thus far this morning by the opposition, Senator Scullion and particularly Senator Fielding. As a Queensland senator, I have intimate involvement in this area and I know there are other Queenslanders, like Senator McLucas and Senator Moore, who have travelled to the cape on many occasions and who understand the Indigenous issues—in particular in this matter concerning the environment. However, the bill in its current form is deeply flawed. If you go through the bill clause by clause, you will clearly identify the flaws in the bill.

When it comes to economic development, we heard during the last inquiry into this bill through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, only a few weeks ago, of the confusion, the lack of understanding and, on many occasions, the contributions by the Queensland government to the applications that have been presented in terms of economic development up in the cape. I know that there are people in this chamber who have possibly not travelled to that area, and I would suggest that most Australians have not travelled to the cape at all to get an appreciation of the situation up there. But I think people need to understand that it is a remote area. On most occasions you need to fly into Cairns and then fly into Weipa. During the wet season, which has just completed—an extended wet season, in fact—they get their food in via barge from Normanton, and there are various ways of getting their stock and requirements into that area. People need to understand that it is not just a simple matter of saying, 'This is an area that can be developed,' or that it can be considered for development in any shape or form. That is not the issue. The soil is poor; hardly anything can be grown in that area. However, those opposite run the argument about the Queensland government locking it up. Nothing has been locked up. In fact, I think Senator Fielding made the relevant point—and he is quite right; he has taken an interest in this—that things are not locked up in the cape.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should ask the Indigenous people!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken to the Indigenous people, Senator Macdonald. I do not know whether you have. I know you fly in and out of places, but when you get on the ground and are involved in the wild river itself, and when you speak to Indigenous owners about what the issues are, those are the times and the opportunities when you get an opinion expressed about what the issues are.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do more driving in Northern Australia than you ever will, you donkey!

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I would request withdrawal of that comment.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I did not hear the reference. Do you wish to withdraw?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to assist you, Madam Temporary Chairman, I did call him a donkey, which is what he is, but I withdraw it.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'd only expect that from a Neanderthal. When you examine what this bill does, it claims to lock up the cape. In fact, grazing, fishing, tourism, camping, hunting and gathering continue unaffected. I have seen that myself up in the cape. I have seen Indigenous traditional owners working the cape—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a donkey!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are a ratbag and a fool.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is starting to be discussion across the chamber. Senator Furner, would you continue with your remarks and other senators cease to interject.

There are other matters that are able to be considered. Things like Indigenous cultural activities, ceremonies, harvesting of bush food, medicines and the enjoyment of native title are permitted and unaffected. Outstation development can continue. Recreational boat users can continue to use the rivers and creeks. Mining, grazing and irrigation cont­inue today without the declaration of wild rivers areas. Regarding new developments up in the cape, over 100 applications that have been submitted and we are working through those.

The evidence out there does not suggest that the wild rivers scheme has blocked development on the cape; to the contrary, the scheme has led to successful Indigenous ranger programs. Real jobs have been creat­ed in terms of rangers in that area, jobs which could be lost if this amendment has its passage through this chamber. In fact, the amendment, interestingly, goes to a part­icular matter in terms of—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think he has lost Anna's speech.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give you the facts in about three seconds.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is too much conversation around the chamber.

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator Boswell and Senator Heffernan, there is too much conversation and I cannot hear Senator Furner. I ask that Senator Furner be allowed to continue when there is silence.

Senator Boswell interjecting—

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Geez, you're a knucklehead. The changes to clause 4 in this amendment indicate that wild rivers rangers jobs will be lost and the Australian govern­ment must somehow replace those jobs. This is a matter that I have never seen in any bill whatsoever; a situation where a state piece of legislation relies upon a federal piece of legislation to assume and pick up the loss of any jobs. In fact, in inquiry, the questions were asked: what are these jobs we are talking about; are they rangers' jobs; are they jobs of people involved in development in the cape? This issue and proposal was clearly a matter of confusion during the inquiry. So it is really difficult to know whether this clause was intended to confer an entitlement or not in regard to compensation of the loss of a job.

A number of other questions—which can­not be answered—were also raised by this clause: what kind of work is being promised? If you lose your employment as a ranger—if that is what the bill intends—what is the sort of work that is going to be applied in terms of the loss of that employment as a ranger? Where will the work be? Will rangers be employed in the cape? Will they be relocated to other parts of the state or somewhere else within the nation? These are the issues that have been raised and considered during the inquiry stage, in the legal and constitutional committee and also in the House of Repre­sentatives economics committee when it was before them.

Additionally, it is unclear what the pay and conditions would be, because currently employment is under Queensland statute and no doubt would be under a specific award. No-one is of a view or has an understanding of what their entitlements would be beyond that, given that they are currently employed under state legislation.

Additionally, it will be a question of who will be required to employ these people, because the bill implies or suggests that the federal government should pick up the employment or the protection of these employees, should the bill result in their un­employment. These are the issues associated with clause 4: the constitutional basis and the objective of the bill. The potential for that to lead to lengthy litigation under this bill is very real.

So, when it comes to this fallacy portrayed by those opposite of wanting to protect Indigenous rights, wanting to have some involvement in native title, I think people need to put it in the right context. We need to remind ourselves who opposed the Native Title Act, when a Labor government intro­duced it. It was those opposite who opposed that act, so it is not a case of them going round the cape indicating they are there representing Indigenous rights and wanting to be at the forefront of protection of their lands and their entitlements. I am sure Senator Heffernan would have been there and would remember that they opposed the Native Title Act, so do not come into this chamber saying that you are here to protect Indigenous rights for Queenslanders, let alone for Australians, because you were in opposition on that particular bill.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, I have a point of order: what this is all about is saying to the Indigenous people in Northern Australia, which is half the size—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Come to your point of order, Senator Heffernan.

The point of order is that we are expecting that the great opportunity in life for Indigenous people up there will be to get their photo taken with a spear.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, there is no point of order.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once, again, unlike the coalition, the Australian Labor Party is a party of reform and wholeheartedly supports Indigenous Australians' rights and fosters and encourages Indigenous economic development. This is evident once again in the implementation of the Native Title Act in 1993. We are not disingenuous, unlike the opposition who make out that they are there to protect the rights of Indigenous people. We will continue our involvement as we have done in a variety of different circumstances—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order. He should withdraw the remark that we are not here in the best interests of Indigenous people. I am!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, Senator Heffernan.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say that. You're very precious.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't put crap on me!

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, I rise on a point of order. Senator Heffernan should withdraw that comment unreservedly.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one should put crap on me.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Have you completed your point of order, Senator Sherry?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had not finished my point of order. The statement that Senator Heffernan just made in a disorderly way again reinforces my point of order. He should withdraw his comment.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one should put sewage on me.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not related to sewage either, Senator Heffernan. Madam Temporary Chair, I ask you to require him to withdraw unreservedly.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, on the point of order: the debate is free-flowing. Twice now the Labor Party have interrupted it with precious points of order whilst at the same time—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: And what is your point of order, Senator Macdonald?

the speaker before you was using terms like 'knucklehead', but nobody interrupted the debate and stopped him. I ask you to let the debate flow. If you are going to stop that sort of name-calling, I suggest you start with the speaker who has the call.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I was endeavouring to listen to the speaker so I did not hear the interjections across the chamber. Senator Heffernan, do you wish to withdraw?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not wish to withdraw, because I have been accused of not acting in the best interests of Indigenous people. I have been up there and I know what this is all about. This is an outrage. I have been up there and seen the child abuse that occurs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Heffernan, you are continuing to debate at this stage.

There are 7,500 Indigenous kids in the Northern Territory who still do not have a high school to go to, for God's sake.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I take it that you are refusing to withdraw?

No-one should pretend that I am not on the side of the Indigenous.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go back to my point. We should not forget where we stand on Indigenous rights as a Labor government. Let us not forget the apology delivered on 13 February 2008 by Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister. For many years those opposite spoke about how ill treated all Indigenous Australians were. They had 11½ years to deliver an apology but failed in that regard. They were not willing to deliver such an apology. It was pushed under the rug. After years of silence it was time to end the denial and to acknowledge the ill treatment received by Indigenous Australians. That is what we did on 13 February 2008 and that is what we are about.

I have had several opportunities to visit one of those pristine rivers—the Wenlock River—that have been declared under the Queensland legislation. It is a river that needs to be protected. On a number of occasions I have been up there to visit the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve on the banks of the Wenlock River. The previous govern­ment under John Howard gave that piece of land to the Irwins and here we have the hypocrisy of reversing that position. I wonder what John Howard would do in this debate. He gave that piece of land on the Wenlock River to a conservationist. He understood the significance of it. Those opposite want to overturn it to allow strip mining, destroying the beautiful rivers.

I am sure some of you might have an opportunity to look at some of these pristine rivers. They are beautiful pieces of nature. On my first visit I was shown by Australia Zoo ranger Barry Lyon eight springs on the reserve which are located on a bauxite plateau. These springs are of great ecological value. In fact, they are a source of water for wildlife during the dry season. Bauxite does not absorb the water; instead, it acts as a giant sponge and releases the water during the dry. Research has been conducted in this area by QUT and other researchers. They have found an abundance of wildlife that relies on the existence of these beautiful springs. In 2008 a survey found 151 different vertebrate species, including 75 birds, 26 reptiles, 16 native amphibians, eight native mammals and 16 freshwater fish.

The Queensland government passed the Queensland wild rivers legislation to protect certain areas of the cape. However, the opposition want to portray that they are somehow protecting native title rights. That is not the case. We know what the agenda is here. They just want to reverse it so some of the mining companies can strip mine areas of unique significance. If you destroy these rivers, you will never get a chance to reverse that. Madam Temporary Chairman Hurley, I am sure you understand what happened to the Murray. We do not want to see that on the cape in Queensland. We want to make sure the rivers are protected and Indigenous people have a right to do the things they currently do on their lands. We do not want to hear this fallacy about locking it up continued, because that is not the case. They are free to do their traditional hunting and everything else on the land as they have done for years and years. That will continue under this arrangement. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few comments about the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011 and about the opposition's amendments that I believe deal with a number of the concerns that have been raised with me about how consent will be achieved, because that is a key issue here. I want to deal with some of the concerns of Senator Fielding that were also raised by Senator Furner. Let us put this in perspective. In the absence of a wild river declaration these pieces of legislation apply to the land in Cape York and areas that could be subject to wild river declarations: the Coastal Protection and Management Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Forestry Act, the Fossicking Act, the Land Protection (Pest and. Stock Route Management) Act, the Mineral Resources Act, the Nature Conservation Act, the State Development and Public Works Organis­ation Act, the Sustainable Planning Act, the Transport Infrastructure Act, the Vegetation Management Act and the Water Act. There are currently 13 pieces of legislation in place that provide safeguards for the environment. The fundamental flaw is that there is a lack of consultation and consent with the Indig­enous owners of the land. That is what I find objectionable about the Queensland legisla­tion.

It is rare in this place for senators to be asked to decide between a perfect outcome and a disastrous one. Typically the decisions we are asked to make come down to deciding which way forward will bring about the better outcome—not a perfect outcome, but a better outcome. I want to refer specifically to clause 6 of the bill, because we are in committee, and the way it addresses the issue of consent. There has been a lot said in this debate, and I believe the coalition's bill has been unfairly characterised in some quarters. Let us be clear what this bill does and does not do: it does not prevent the Queensland government from making wild river declarations; it simply requires the Queensland government to seek consent from traditional owners of that land before it makes a declaration. You just have to ask first.

The government has argued that other members of society do not have this right of consent and that if a government wanted to build a freeway where my house is it could compulsorily acquire my land. This is a spurious argument for a number of reasons. Firstly, if the government wants my land to build that freeway, they take over my land. With wild rivers declarations the land is not taken over, but the government does tell you what you can and cannot do with your land. Moreover, if the government wants that freeway, they have to pay me just compensation for that land. With wild rivers there is no compensation, you just lose your rights.

The government has said that traditional owners can seek exemptions from a declaration, arguing that more than 100 have already been granted. It is something that my friend and colleague Senator Fielding referred to. But as Balkanu CEO Terry Piper has pointed out, nine of those were for one fence. And as Noel Pearson has also pointed out, the vast majority of those permits have been granted to either mining companies or state government departments. Surely this supports the argument by Indigenous groups that the application process is so complex you need the resources of a mining company or a government to go through it.

There is another issue here. Senator Fielding made the point: let us help people navigate through the wild rivers declarations. I say this, understanding that Senator Fielding is absolutely genuine in his concerns: but you are asking people to navigate where there are so many obstacles, where the boat you are given in the first place is so leaky by virtue of these wild river declarations, it is setting up impossible obstacles for these communities.

In January this year I travelled to Cape York Peninsula where I met with both supporters and opponents of the coalition's bill, and I must say wherever I went—and I travelled freely and consulted widely—I met a lot more supporters than opponents. One of the supporters was Bruce Martin from Aurukun, who I met again last night. He is one of the new generation of Indigenous leaders. He is articulate, he is smart, he is passionate about the possibility for real economic development. He wants to do something about the horrendous unemployment rates in his communities—70 per cent, 80 per cent unemployment rates. We all do.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everybody does.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas says, 'Everybody does,' and I agree with that. There is no issue about the genuineness of both sides of the house wanting to deal with the shocking rates of unemployment and disadvantage in those communities. Incidentally, former senator Brian Harradine danced with members of the Aurukun community here in front of Parliament House over native title.

Bruce and his community have big plans for Aurukun, and they have mapped a path forward. Bruce says they want to look after country. They also want to get young people back to country to strengthen and maintain culture. They want to create training and employment and they want to do this by utilising the one asset they have—their land—to be able to provide for their families.

Bruce and almost all of the Indigenous people I have spoken to on this issue argue that the wild rivers legislation is an impediment to achieving this. For example, the Aurukun people are exploring the option of a cattle destocking project that would manage the 10,000 to 15,000 head of feral cattle and 5,000 wild brumbies that are currently destroying the environment up there. Over three years they want to remove 95 per cent of feral animals from key cultural and environmental areas, creating jobs and restoring their country, and providing food for their community. But plans like this, which has the support of backers like philanthropist Paul Bendat, are threatened by wild rivers declarations. Yes, the Aurukun people can attempt to seek an exemption, but there is no guarantee that they can get it. And they can argue the costs involved make it beyond their reach.

Bruce said something else that has hit home about the Wild Rivers Act. He said to me that the Queensland wild rivers legislation, like native title more broadly, only entitles him and his community 'to be native'. He went on to say:

It is now the 21st century. We need the outside world to stop viewing us as the 'noble savage'. What we are trying to do now is to keep our culture strong, stay committed to the traditions and beliefs of our ancestors and to look after country and utilise our land, but with all the benefits of modernity. Old and new in partnership.

I believe we need to be careful that our laws do not stand in the way of these fine aspirations.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Might I begin by complimenting Senator Xenophon on a fine, thoughtful and idealistic speech. On 3 April 2009, the minister for Indigenous affairs, Jenny Macklin, announced that the Labor government had decided that Australia would become a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that has since happened. In her speech making that announcement on 3 April 2009, Ms Macklin described the declaration as a 'landmark document', both 'historic and aspirational', by which, as she said:

We show our faith in a new era of relations between states and Indigenous peoples grounded in good faith, goodwill and mutual respect.

Fine words.

Article 26 (2) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which the Gillard government has subscribed, provides—just listen to this, Senator Fielding, please:

Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

So the Labor government and the minister for Indigenous affairs, Ms Macklin, have patted themselves on the back for subscribing to this declaration, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which contains that guarantee, the guarantee in article 26 that Indigenous people have the right to own, use, develop and control their traditional lands. By a crowning irony, on the very day that Ms Macklin made that speech, a thousand miles to the north, in Brisbane, the Bligh Labor government gazetted three major river systems in Cape York—the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Rivers, their catchments, tributaries and floodplains—under the Queensland Wild Rivers Act 2005. The effect of the gazettal by the Queensland government on 3 April 2009 was to make it impossible for the Indigenous people—the traditional owners, the people whom we acknowledge and pay respect to every morning as this chamber convenes—to use, develop or control those traditional lands. How remarkable—the high-toned sentiments of Minister Macklin in Canberra and the reality of a cynical state Labor machine in Brisbane on the very same day saying one thing and doing another. There could not be a more stark example of the rule that the Labor Party says one thing but does the opposite. And what the Queensland Labor government did on this occasion was a peculiarly wicked thing to do. It destroyed the economic livelihood of the traditional owners of the cape. And it is to reverse this wicked decision that Senator Scullion's private senator's bill has been brought to the chamber.

I do not profess to be a specialist in this area, so do not take it from me, let us hear what the Aboriginal leaders have to say about the effect of the Queensland Wild Rivers legislation. Marcia Langton, Profes­sor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, described the gazettal of the Lockhart, Archer and Stewart Rivers—I hope you are listening to this, Senator Fielding—as 'a terminal threat to the eco­nomic future of the local Aboriginal people'. So please, Senator Furner, do not cond­escendingly tell us about the wildlife; let us talk about the human life, let us talk about the Aboriginal people, whom the Labor Party, with all its pious rhetoric, claims to champion, yet in reality stabs a knife through their heart with this legislation. Marcia Langton says this is a terminal threat to the economic future of the local Aboriginal people.

Even Mr Tom Calma, this government's own Aboriginal Social Justice Commiss­ioner, said he had 'serious concerns about the effect of the gazettals on the exercise and enjoyment of Indigenous people's human rights—in particular, those concerning cultural and economic develop­ment rights to their lands, waters and natural resources'. Noel Pearson said that the effect of the gazettal was 'to foreclose on the future for our people'. He said 'the state'—the state Labor government, that is—'cannot rip the future out from under Indigenous children's feet'. The Young Australian of the Year, Tania Major, a very impressive young woman with whom I shared a panel on Q&A two years ago, spent that program pleading with Anna Bligh, who was also a co-panelist that night, to understand the effect on local Aboriginal people, their livelihood and their economic future, of the Queensland wild rivers legislation. But Tania Major's pleas fell on deaf ears, just as Noel Pearson's pleas, Tom Calma's pleas, Marcia Langton's pleas and Bruce Martin's pleas have done.

Do you know what is peculiarly wicked about the Queensland Wild Rivers Act? As anybody who lives in Brisbane knows, it was the result of a backroom deal in a West End coffee shop just before the 2009 Queensland state election, which the Labor Party managed to win, managed to pull out of the fire, on the back of Greens preferences. And what happened in that deal was that the Labor Party powerbrokers in Brisbane, who are no better than the Labor Party power­brokers of Sussex Street or Carlton or any of the other unattractive Labor Party power­brokers across the country, sat down with the Greens in the inner-city suburb of West End in Brisbane and traded the future of the Cape York Aboriginal and Indigenous people for Green preferences. They made a present of the future of those people in order to appeal to the conceits and vanities of inner-city Green voters in Brisbane. It is as simple as that, and everybody in Brisbane knows it.

So please let us not have from Senator Furner and, I anticipate, from Senator McLucas, who I expect will be speaking shortly, pieties about how concerned the Labor Party is about Indigenous people when they come to this chamber to oppose a bill which will reinstate the rights which this very Labor government subscribed to an international instrument in order to secure—the right, as I quoted before from article 26 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership. How can you do it, Senator McLucas? How can you, because I know that you do care about social justice? I know that you are troubled by this. I know that the unattractive goons—or to use Mr Rudd's word, 'thugsters'—who control the Queensland branch of the Labor Party are hardly friends of yours. So I know you are troubled by this. But how can you in good conscience come into this chamber and oppose a bill that would restore the traditional rights of the Indigenous people of the Cape York Peninsula.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a lawyer, George.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator McLucas, I am a lawyer and I am very proud to be a lawyer. It is a very timely interjection, because I thought I might conclude the last few minutes of my speech by talking about the constitutional basis of this bill. Because there is no doubt at all that Senator Scullion's bill is soundly consti­tutionally based under at least—

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an opinion.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is an opinion and it happens to be correct—and you will not find a serious lawyer who will disagree with me. Let me explain it to you, Senator McLucas. Under section 51(xxvi) of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Common­wealth parliament can make laws for:

The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.

It is the so-called race power.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How long would that take to go through the High Court?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How would it go at the High Court? The argument that I am propounding would win without a shadow of a doubt, Senator McLucas. So while Senator Scullion's bill is supported by the race power in section 51(xxvi) it is also supported, as any piece of legislation in this parliament these days that relies on an international instrument, by the external affairs power—section 51(xxix) of the Commonwealth Constitution.

We have had this argument, Senator McLucas. Let me refer you to the Tasmanian dams case and volume 158 of the Commonwealth Law Reports, which I just happen to have with me, in which the High Court in 1983 upheld the Commonwealth Law in relation to the Gordon below Franklin Dam on the basis of the United Nations convention on world cultural and national heritage. So we have a clearly established precedent in the High Court in the Tasmanian dams case and in subsequent cases that environment legislation based on an international treaty is within the legislative competence of this parliament under the power conferred by section 51(xxix)—the external affairs power.

But this case, Senator McLucas, is even clearer than the Tasmanian dams case. It is clearer for two reasons: first of all, because the jurisprudence has moved on since 1983. In all the years since the High Court's construction, the breadth or the ambit of the external affairs power has expanded; it has not diminished. So if the Tasmanian dams case was good authority for the use of the external affairs power to support environmental legislation in 1983, then it is certainly the case in 2011 that the Common­wealth parliament has the power.

But it is even clearer in this case for a second reason, Senator McLucas—and let me finish where I began—because it was your government that acceded to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indig­enous Peoples. So under the external affairs power Senator Scullion's bill is doubly supported. It is supported by the World Heritage convention, because it is a bill in relation to the protection of the environment, but it is also a bill, plainly, for the protection of the rights of the Indigenous people and it gives effect to what your government subscribed to but your Labor Party collea­gues in Queensland, in order to buy Green votes, walked away from, and that is the right in Article 26 of that international convention of indigenous peoples to:

... Have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership ...

If you believe that, you would vote for this bill, and by your conduct in opposing this bill you really show what you stand for.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great sadness that I rise in this chamber today to contribute to what I think is a divisive and hurtful argument. In 1996 I had the honour of being a member of the Cape York Regional Advis­ory Group, an organisation that was established to work with Indigenous pe­ople—with landowners, with the graziers of the cape and with the environmental groups of Cape York Peninsula. That started in 1996. That produced a document called the Cape York Peninsula land use strategy. It had three objectives: to promote the econ­omic values of Cape York; to improve the social outcomes for people who live on Cape York Peninsula; and to protect the environment of Cape York Peninsula. It was a fine document. It is a document that everyone who worked on that document was extremely proud of—and it has gone nowhere. It has gone nowhere and the people of Cape York are the victims of what happens in chambers like this, what happens around the place when people do not consider the outcomes of what people want on Cape York Peninsula, when politicians get involved in what people really want. What do people really want in Cape York? They want jobs, they want an economic outcome, they want a social outcome, they want to have control over their lands. What is happening here today does nothing to change that objective. In fact, what this bill does is increase the complexity and delay the outcome even more. I think every speaker in this argument today—this discussion in the committee stage today—has talked about complexity. Of course it is complex to deal with the issues that we deal with on a day-to-day basis in Cape York Peninsula, but this bill does nothing to improve those outcomes. In my view, it in fact puts us back.

I do go to the comments of Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis talked a lot about the law. Can I suggest that we will end up talking in courts and in places outside Cape York Peninsula for a very long time if this piece of legislation is progressed, because there will be debate about the consti­tutionality of this legislation, about whether or not it can affect the Queensland legislation and about whether or not it does improve outcomes for people who live on Cape York Peninsula. Why is it that we want to play with the lives of people who live on Cape York over and over?

There were fine words from Senator Scullion in talking about aspirations. I agree with most of what you said, Senator Scullion, except that your way of getting there should not be through a flimsy piece of legislation that in my view is about division. This is not about pulling people together. This is not about finding a way forward. The wild rivers legislation, we all know, had some very difficult consultation beginnings. We know that. That is a fact. Queensland knows that it could have done a better job of consulting with people. It has remedied that, and I acknowledge the work of Senator Fielding in ensuring that that process has been improved. But we know we have to work with people on the ground. This will provide division. Rivers traverse large numbers of traditionally owned lands. You know that, Senator Scullion, and you know that this will divide traditional owners and pit them against one another. This will pit traditional owners against one another. This is not about bringing groups of people together; this is division, and this will mean that we entrench that division that has been delivered by this discussion already.

We have talked about the different points of view that are held by people on Cape York, and there are totally different points of view. But that is why we have to get down to some facts. I think that the whole wild rivers debate has been characterised by a lot of conjecture. It is about argument making and, in many cases, it can be described as being hyperbole.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Hyperbowl', according to the Prime Minister.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to Senator McGauran also, as I remember. But all of that characterisation has resulted in division: division on the cape, division in here and division among groups of people who, I believe, honestly and truly want better things for the people of Cape York. But this will not do it. This will provide us with more time in the courts, I am sure. This will provide us with a delay in any development that is going to occur. This will delay those aspirations that we came to in the mid-nineties about economic development, social development and environmental protection that were agreed. That has been delayed, and I will put the blame on the former Howard government. Forty million dollars was allocated in the 1996 budget. How much was spent? Very, very little. No money was brought for land buyback—or very little money. Less than $1 million was allocated out of that $40 million; $17 million was meant to be spent on buyback, and less than a million was spent on buyback during the 12 years of the Howard government. That delay was politically inspired, and now we have another delaying tactic—another thing that is going to put back the aspirations of Indigenous people yet again.

I note the comments from Senator Scullion about federal intervention and how he feels uncomfortable about that. I would too if I were a senator from a territory having experienced it. I also note the very strongly made comments from Senator Brandis that he was quite sure that this would pass through a High Court decision.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a shadow of a doubt.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Not a shadow of a doubt,' he says. I would suggest that that is an opinion. I am not a lawyer. It is an opinion, and there will be others with different opinions. That is the nature of the law. Senator Brandis nods in agreement, because that, I think, is true.

Senator Scullion talked a lot about joint management of national parks. We all agree, but what does this bill do about joint management of national parks? Nothing. It does not do anything about joint manage­ment of national parks. We are doing it. I will make the point that I think Queensland has been slower than it could have been in developing joint management arrangements on Cape York Peninsula. I would have loved to see the Shelburne Bay joint management arrangements put in place before Tapich passed away. We want to progress on joint management arrangements, but this does not do anything to progress that. You know that, Senator Scullion. What this does is put obstacles in the way of finding agreement among various traditional owner groups around national parks.

I take the point that Senator Xenophon made about resourcing of appropriate processes, but in saying so can I say that to this point in time there have been no applications not approved, and the number of applications sits around 100. I take Senator Xenophon's point that it is a reasonably complex process. There is an organisation, though, that is resourced to support people to make applications and progress economic aspirations. It is funded to do that. It has been funded for a long time to do that. It is called Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation. That is the organisation that is meant to be supporting people to make application through any process.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've seen what Balkanu say about the process, haven't you?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is my point, Senator Macdonald. We have an organisation that is funded to support Aboriginal people to achieve their economic aspirations, and what is it doing? It is running a campaign against wild rivers. So, if you are an Aboriginal person and you want to go and get some support to do whatever economic activity you want to do, are you going to turn up at Balkanu's door? I do not think so. It is running a political campaign.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest clearly for political reasons and you guys know that, and your laughter acknowledges that. If you are an Aboriginal person, are you going to go to Balkanu? I don't think so.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are so condescending to Aboriginal people.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McLucas, has the floor.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that we have some extra money that will support people to make applications through a complex process. There are technical pro­blems with this bill and I want to go through them. The bill's proposal that the consent of Indigenous landowners is required for the making of a wild rivers declaration it totally unworkable. It is unworkable for a whole range of reasons. As I said earlier, rivers traverse various traditional owner lands. This bill will ensure—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So do national parks.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly. National parks do. We can pull those groups together, but if you are going to say—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you get agreement there?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The outcome will be that we won't ever have any protection.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Senator McLucas, I would advise you not to respond to provocation.

I thank you for that advice. I am saying that it is totally unworkable. The process cannot apply to other landholders whose agreement is required, like leaseholders. There are other landholders who have an interest in what a wild river declaration might look like and what conditions might apply to that wild river. We have Indigenous native title holders, there are leaseholders and in some cases there are some freeholders, who need to be included in a discussion about the aspirations that can be agreed to.

Under the Native Title Act, you are ensuring that we will spend a lot of time holding meetings and having discussions about things that will have no economic outcome for people who are the traditional owners of that land. The bill does not cater for the circumstance in which Indigenous people agree about whether a wild river declaration should apply or not. This is a way to ensure that we have division on Cape York.

I want to end by talking about the aspirations of people who live on Cape York. They do not want to argue. They do not want to be turning up all the time. I note the comment from Richie Ah Mat from the Cape York Land Council when he appeared at the Senate inquiry. He is sick of turning up at Senate committee inquiries and he would like people to get on with it. Let's do that. Let's allow people of Cape York to get on—

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He supports this legislation; that is what he means.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is sick and tired of turning up at Senate inquiries, I can tell you that.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He wants you to pass it.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I tell you, if we pass this legislation, he will be turning up to inquiry after inquiry as we deal with the flow-ons and the outcomes of this legislation. People in Cape York do want economic outcomes. We know this from Murrandoo Yanner, who gave evidence to the last inquiry, about the economic outcomes he has achieved: five full-time, permanent jobs that are active out there on land, managing the rivers in the gulf area. These are jobs that were not there before but are there now for the long term, jobs that people have been crying out for for a really long time and—as Senator Macdonald indicated—jobs that we will be providing through our budget, and I am very, very proud of that.

This piece of legislation will provide no jobs. It will delay the provision of jobs for a long time. It will pit Aboriginal people against Aboriginal people, instead of pulling people together in the way that you describe, Senator Scullion, where you pull people together to talk about a national park and then some economic outcome that may come out of that. This will not do that. Queensland have made the commitment to progress with more rangers and we have seen that with the rivers in the gulf.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a government job.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aboriginal people, Senator Boswell, have been talking about being able to manage their land with some rights—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don't you let them?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are stopping them.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the wild rivers legislation there is a commitment to have ranger jobs associated with it. Those ranger jobs are the jobs that people in Cape York have been asking for for a very long time. Yes, they want to have traditional ownership as a first step then they want to have the right to manage that land, and the way to do it is through ranger jobs then to have the economic outcome as well. I honestly hope this legislation will never pass.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I came to the intent of this par­ticular bill in about 1985-86 when millions of hectares were given to Aboriginal people under DOGIT, deed of grant in trust. That land was supposed to be allocated to the communities under the Local Government Act and anyone who wanted some land to do something would be allocated that land, whether it was 20 acres to grow tomatoes, land for a cattle station or a sawmill, or whatever it was, and that land was allocated to those particular Aboriginal people and then they made their own decisions. That was around 1985-87. I had a bit to do with it. As people would know, I was close to the Premier at the time. In fact, I went around some of these communities with Bob Katter and the Premier. We worked together to give this land to them for what they wanted to do with it. Then that land was taken away from the local communities and put under an act. Aboriginal people walked down George Street, protesting that the Labor government had taken their land away and calling for Bob Katter to come back as the minister. That was the start of it. Now we come to the Wild Rivers Act. This merely is an act that would allow people to be involved in their own communities to make a living out of the land. Not all of it but a lot of it was given under the deed of grant in trust.

So that is the history of this. Then the Labor government tried to come in over the top of a previous government and take that land away. Not only that, what they intended to do and were literally caught in the act doing was to keep that land and put it into World Heritage. It was only Warren Truss who got up in the other House and demanded of the Aboriginal minister at the time that the minister not do it unless they had the consent of the Aboriginal people. Two or three weeks ago, the then minister said, 'I've pushed the pause button and we won't go ahead with it, because we do not have the consent of the Aboriginal people.' That is the main game. That is the commitment to the Wilderness Society that this eventually would be turned into wild rivers. Wild rivers would be the first step, and then it would go into World Heritage. When the minister made his commitment that he would pause, the Wilderness Society said, 'We'll still campaign for this.'

Senator Furner got up and did not know what he was saying—and you should forgive those who do not understand these things, but I would have expected better from Senator McLucas. 'What is there to be ar­guing about,' Senator Furner says. 'You can hunt. You can shoot a pig. You can have your traditional dances. You can go out in the river. You can do all the things that native title gives you.' And that is right. You can do all those things. No-one is arguing that. But we want to go the next step. We want to say to the Aboriginal community and the Pearsons of the world: 'You have got a right to live in the 21st century. You have got a right to go out there and put a farm down that will grow vegetables and then sell those vegetables in the local community.' You cannot do that. You can grow veget­ables, sure. You can grow for your own use, but you cannot commercially put down a farm in what you would call a catchment area.

The Bligh government initially talked about how the impact would only be on a handful of pristine rivers. It turns out that they actually meant to see entire river catchments and basins and, in fact, 80 per cent of Cape York would be subject to yet another layer of regulations, effectively frustrating opportunities for Indigenous people. It captures 80 per cent of the land so you cannot do anything other than have an obscure native title right where you can hunt, fish and have ceremonies. It does not allow any way that you can commercially use that land to provide fruit, vegetables and healthy things in life; go out and have a cattle farm; or go out and do something that will be productive and commercial. Therefore, you are locking these thousands of people—there are 14,000 people who live on the cape—out of any commercial event. You are locking them out of lifting themselves out of poverty.

It is a terrible shame that the Labor Party are doing this. Because Senator Xenophon in his excellent speech quoted another traditional owner, I will quote Senator Pearson—Mr Pearson. One day he might be a senator—and what a wonderful addition he would be to this house.

The exercise of traditional rights and traditional activities is important but that will never lift our people out of poverty and misery. We have to be able to undertake land use that generates economic return for the people who live there. We are not going to be serious about closing the gap as to Indigenous disadvantage if we have this view that all that Aboriginal people should be happy with and all that they should be entitled to is to stand on one leg in the sunset picking berries. Fundamentally this is a racist expectation on the part of governments and other stakeholders to expect Aboriginal people to live in some frozen past.

There is someone who is speaking up for the Aboriginal community. Sure, he does not speak for every one of them; but he speaks for most of them. I would say he speaks for 90 per cent of them.

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

No he doesn't!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he does. And I have been up there many times. Balkanu, Pearson—those people speak for most of the people who want to lift themselves out of poverty, who want to lift their kids out of poverty. They do not want to be condemned to an everlasting life of social welfare, and that is what you are condemning them to: an everlasting life of social welfare where they and their kids will never be able to have a job and all that entails. Senator Brandis made a comment about the United Nations. He spoke very well—and so he should; he is a QC. But he put it very succinctly. He said that the Prime Minister at the time signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And what has the present Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, said? Commenting on the Closing the gap report, she called on the Indigenous people:

… to take a job when you find one; to create a safe environment; to send your kids to school, pay your rent, save up for a home; to respect good social norms and to respect the law; and to reach out to other Australians.

But in Cape York the Labor government is shutting down avenues for jobs and reaching out for Greens preferences on wild rivers.

What have the Aboriginals of Cape York received from this government? Sure, it signed the United Nations treaty. They were told to get a job. And we did have a 'welcome to country' put in this parliament, which no-one objects to—but that does not pay the rent. That does not give anyone a job. That does not lift people out of poverty. So what they got is tokenism—beads and mirrors. That is what this government has given the Aboriginal community: beads and mirrors. Nothing that says, 'Your kids can get a job.' Your kids cannot get a job; there are no jobs up there. And there will not be jobs up there unless you let the Aboriginals use the land that was given to them by previous state governments and that you have taken away.

Isn't it ironic that a party that has always been painted by the Labor Party as being against Aboriginals gave them millions of acres of land and put the first Aboriginal member of parliament into state parliament? I have been out campaigning with at least two—it was two or three—other Indigenous candidates when I tried to get them into parliament. It is ironic that the Labor Party that claim to be the friends and natural allies of the Indigenous people are stealing their land off them, and for Greens preferences. Senator Furner says, 'Hang on a minute, they can develop anything they like and there have been 113 developments applications,' and Senator McLucas says, 'Of course, if they want an application it will be passed.'

Let me just say that out of the 113 development applications 79 were for exploration permits. Of the 35 remaining 'development approvals', 17 were issued to government entities for activities such as fencing and gravel extraction; eight riverine protection permits and one environmentally related activity permit appears to relate to the Century Mine project, which is an existing development; three riverine protection permits are for the Stanbroke Pastoral Co., possibly for a fence; two vegetation clearing applications, for the Strathmore and Barr Creek holding, are presumably for clearing for a fence; and one approval was for Adels Grove camping park, which is an existing development. There have been none appr­oved. Yes, you can hide, you can run, you can misrepresent people, but they are the facts.

We heard—and you were there, Senator McLucas, in Cairns—when one particular community, I just forget which one, said that after the wild rivers declaration they cannot actually get their gravel out of a pit and they have to drive 20 or 30 miles there and back. They cannot even take gravel out of a gravel pit for the roads around the Aboriginal community. That is what you have done to these people.

Senator Fielding will be leaving this place in three or four weeks time and I want to give him this message. Senator, you have come in on a church vote; let me give you this message. What does it profit a man if he gets something but loses his soul? Take that with you when you leave this place.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Any fair-minded, independent Australian who heard the speeches of Senator Scullion, Senator Xenophon and Senator Brandis could not help but agree on the importance of this bill, the Wild Rivers (Environmental Manage­ment) Bill 2011, and the necessity for this parliament to pass it. I again appeal to Senator Fielding, whose vote will be crucial to the future of Indigenous people not just in Cape York but right throughout Australia, to reconsider his stance to date on this bill. I ask Senator Fielding to consider seriously the things that Senator Xenophon raised, the issues that Senator Brandis raised and the comments of both Senator Scullion and Senator Boswell. This bill will unlock opportunities for Indigenous people.

I have to say about the Labor Party—and I am careful not to say this about indi­viduals—that it seems to me that the actions of the Labor Party across the board show that the Labor Party want to keep Indigenous people on welfare forever. Why they would want to do that I cannot possibly understand, but all of their approaches to Indigenous people treat Indigenous people as second-rate citizens, as people who are incapable of looking after themselves. That is what the Labor Party does, whereas those of us on this side have a completely different view. Indigenous people are as good as, if not better than, those of us in this chamber, for example. They have the same rights as we have. They have the right to look after their own land and property and to deal with it. I challenge Senator McLucas and Senator Fielding: if a government was going to do something with their house, with their property, wouldn't you want to have a say in it? Wouldn't you think it is your right to say to a government, 'This is my land; I want a say in how this is dealt with'? Of course Senator McLucas would. She would be the first on her feet screaming and yelling if a government tried to do to her house and land what the Queensland state Labor government is doing to Indigenous people with the wild rivers legislation. I think it was Senator Fielding—it might have been Senator Furner—who said to get approval you need the consent of the owner. Welcome to Australia! What a strange thought that you should not ask the owner of the land what it is all about. I think it was Senator Furner who said you need to get the consent of 11 different groups of people.

Let me go through the bill and point out these 11 different groups of people. It means, for Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Act, grantees of Aboriginal land under that act. That is the first lot whose approval has to be sought. There are Aboriginal people who have rights under that act. How unsurprising is that? Owner means, for land where native title exists, native title holders. Again, it is not unsurprising that they should have a say. It means, for a lease under the Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders (Land Holding) Act, the lessee. Under that act, some Indigenous people have got land as a lessee. This requires them to be consulted and their approval sought. How unsurprising that? It means, in relation to a deed of grant in trust which Senator Boswell spoke about under the Land Act granted for the benefit of Aboriginal people, the grantee. So they have been given land and the Labor Party are saying you should not ask them or seek their approval if you are going to lock up their land.

The definition of owner goes on to be defined in relation to a reserve under the Land Act for a community purpose which includes Aboriginal purposes the trustees of the reserve. They have been given a reserve for Indigenous purposes, and this bill requires their approval too. What is so wrong with that?

For freehold land or land held in trust for an Aboriginal person or an Aboriginal corporation under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act, owner means the registered proprietor of that land. Again, land is given to someone and this bill requires their consent. What is wrong with that? Senator McLucas would want to give her consent if it were her land being taken, but she does not afford the same right to Indigenous people.

For completeness, owner also includes, for a term lease or a perpetual lease under the Land Act held by or in trust for an Aboriginal person or an Aboriginal corporation under the Corporations Act, the lessee. Again, Indigenous people having been given that right should have the right of veto, quite correctly. Finally, for the Aurukun Shire lease, under the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act, of course, the Aurukun Shire Council have to consent. Why wouldn't they?

I again challenge Senator McLucas and Senator Fielding: if you were going to do to their house and land what this bill does, wouldn't they demand a right of veto? They would want it but they do not want to give that same right to Indigenous people. I repeat that it seems to me that the Labor Party, for whatever purpose, want to keep Indigenous people on welfare forever, whereas we on this side want to support Indigenous people's right to be Australian and to have the same opportunity as every other Australian.

I repeat, for Senator Fielding's benefit particularly, the scene that Senator Brandis described as to why this legislation came into being. I would like to hear from Senator Brown on this and see if he challenges it. It is a well-known fact that this legislation on wild rivers by the Queensland Labor government came into play in a dirty deal done in a West End cafe by the then Queensland Premier with the Wilderness Society. The Labor government desperately needed Greens preferences, so to get them they sold out Aboriginal rights. They sold out the Aboriginal people just to get preferences from the Greens political party at that particular state election. That is the only reason this legislation came into being. I would like Senator Brown to deny that.

Senator Xenophon quite clearly pointed out that, if you want to preserve and look after the biodiversity and environment of any of these lands, there are 12 or 13 other pieces of state and federal legislation that can do exactly that. But they do it in a way and by a process that does respect the rights of the owners, in this case the Indigenous owners. This bill adds nothing to that. For all of Senator Furner's speech that he read from, for all his words, he did not want to address the fact that any protection that might be needed for this very special land can already be given under other pieces of legislation. I ask Senator Fielding: why introduce this new piece of legislation when all of those protections are there?

I briefly descend to the level of Senator Furner when he cast aspersions on those of us on this side who have the real interests of Indigenous people at heart. For Senator Furner—a Johnny-come-lately to this place—to suggest that I and others fly in and fly out to these areas is very offensive. I have spent my life since I have been in parliament driving on the road in remote parts of Queensland. He seems to think that because he has done it once—and I suspect he flew in and flew out anyhow—he is something special. I say this because he will not say it himself, but our leader, Tony Abbott, has actually made a practice of going and living in Indigenous communities and has done for some years. I know he has done it in Cape York. I found out by mistake almost, because when he goes there, unlike the Prime Minister, he does not take a team of media people with him; he goes and does some work and understands the Indigenous people, particularly the Indigenous people in Cape York. That is where this bill in this parliament, the Scullion bill, actually originated, from Tony Abbott's deep understanding of and involvement with Indigenous people, something that the Prime Minister and most of those on the Labor side would never understand.

Time is going to run out. I know Senator Heffernan also wants to say a few words on this bill. I want to point out what a witness, Balkanu, said in evidence to a Senate committee about the impact of a declared wild river:

…a community vegetable garden within a High Preservation Area is only permissible if it does not involve clearing vegetation. It is difficult to imagine circumstances on Cape York where a community vegetable garden could be established without some clearing of vegetation.

They went on to say:

High Preservation Areas have in almost all declarations been declared to the maximum of 1km either side of the declared wild river and its major tributaries—with no scientific justification.

Obviously, as they go on to say:

The best soils for community gardens are within this area.

Last week I was in the Gulf Country of Queensland. Of course, this does not just apply to Cape York; this has been extended now into the Gulf rivers and extended down into the Lake Eyre Basin. If it has not gone to Lake Eyre yet it is on the way, by the Queensland government, because there is an election coming up and the Queensland government again need the preferences of the Greens political party. What has the Queensland government got to sell? They have sold almost everything else in Queensland. They do not have much to give the Greens political party for their preferences anymore, so they agreed to take in the Lake Eyre rivers.

Having been in the Gulf Country last week, I can tell you people up there are petrified for all of their development plans, their proposals for their communities and their people—Indigenous and otherwise—people who want to make a living for themselves and who want to be taken off welfare. They are petrified that additional rivers in the Gulf Country are going to be declared because there is an election coming up and the Labor Party under Anna Bligh desperately needs Greens political party preferences again.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think that will even save it this time.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps it will not even save it, but the Labor Party in Queensland are pretty desperate. That is why Senator McLucas and Senator Furner, two Queensland senators, are here in this chamber trying to knock off this bill so that the preference deal in Queensland can go through. I highlight again that this is all about Greens preferences. It does nothing for protection of the land that could not be done by other pieces of state and federal legislation. As Senator Xenophon rightly pointed out, those of us who have been to the cape and the Gulf Country with open eyes, without a preconceived position, can feel, see and count that most Indigenous people are totally opposed to the Queensland wild rivers legislation as it exists. They want to have some say in their own land. This bill gives them that say, and I think any genuine legislator—anyone in this chamber who has the real interests of Indigenous people at heart—should support this bill.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to give a non-legal perspective to what this is about. You will probably use my qualifications as a farmer, a worn-out wool classer and a welder. This is about the disenfranchising of the aspirations of the Indigenous community. There is no question that the Indigenous community of Australia has been treated disgracefully. I went to a community as the Chairman of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskf­orce and talked to a grandmother in that community in which whitefella social habits have completely destroyed the com­munity to the point where this lady was looking after a girl who had to be surgically put back together after being pack raped at 20 months. Senator Furner, do not ever tell me I do not care about Indigenous people. He can refer to my maiden speech, the first time I stood up in this parliament. All Australians should hang their heads in shame for the treatment that Indigenous people have been given.

To give you an idea of what this is all about: in the Northern Territory, where the Indigenous people learn from what is going on around them, 45 per cent of the Northern Territory has Indigenous ownership, for which they get no benefit generally—Mistake Creek and one or two places are an exception—I met a whitefella who was bragging to me, as chairman of the northern taskforce, that he had 17,000 cattle on this blackfella country, as we call it. Blackfellas do not mind me calling them blackfellas because we are mates; I am a whitefella. I said, 'Oh yeah, what are they getting out of it?' He said, "Mate, I give them $10,000 twice a year to get on the piss.' I felt like smacking him in the bloody head—that is the treatment we hand out. This is about the aspirations for our most precious resource, like our bloody jackeroos and jillaroos, our Indigenous people are the foundation of Australia and we are saying to them, 'No, mate, you can never own your own home and write out a will and pass your home to your kids. No, we can't do that.' So we have this ridiculous proposition.

Let me put it into a global context. By 2050 with nine billion people on the planet—we need to see this in the broadest scope and then bring it down to the area of which we are talking—barring a catastrophe of some sort, 50 per cent of the world's population poor for water, 30 per cent of the productive land of Asia having gone out of production, two-thirds of the world's population living there, the food task doubling and possibly 1.6 billion people on the planet displaced—that is by 2050. By 2070, unless there is a catastrophe, approximately 12 billion people. A place like China will have to feed half its population from someone else's resources by 2050 if India does not wake up to itself because they have not so far, China has and it is trying to engineer a solution to the North China Plain. There are 57 rivers that flow into Bangladesh and 54 of those rivers flow in from India which mines next to the groundwater which becomes the river water. There are 160 million people in Bangladesh who are going to have to move as part of the 1.6 billion displaced. They live in an area half the size of Cape York Peninsula.

Cape York Peninsula is 17½ million hectares—please note I am not reading a speech—which is the same size as Victoria. If you take out the coastal towns, the 800,000 to a million feral pigs, the 30,000, approximately, wild cattle not tagged and the 14 to 17 pastoral stations, there are approximately 14,000 people. Bangladesh has 160 million people in half that area. The UN are not going to be able to sort this. Australia has to listen to Mother Nature. Mother Nature is saying—all science has vagaries; all human endeavour has failures—and if the science is half right in what it is saying we have a serious global food task problem. Science says that it is going to dry up in the south and I will not go through that. It says that the weather is going to move in an anticlockwise direction and there are going to be opportunities in the north.

Senator Macdonald and I went to Georgetown. As he said, this Wild Rivers stuff is going to be a cancer that spreads. It was pegged out in 1957 for irrigation but that has never been done. To put this into proper context I am going to fine it down. When I was chairman of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce we took evidence in Cairns and the chairman of the Cape York Peninsula Land Council came in. I said to him, 'Mate, where do you live?' and he told me. I said, 'How big's the joint you're on—an ex-pastoral station?' He said, 'Mate, I don't know but its 90 kilometres from the mailbox to the house.' I said, 'What do you do there?' He said, 'Oh, we catch a few wild cattle.' I said, 'What' s the house like?' He said, 'The white ants have eaten it.' 'What are the fences like?' 'They've all fallen down.' It is because this is sit-down country.

This is not a fair go for our Indigenous people. So what do we do then? I actually chaired the Traveston Dam inquiry—get the facts of this. I negotiated with Peter Beattie, who was the then premier, to allow the public servants to come and give evidence to the Traveston Dam inquiry, which I chaired. I had a good relationship with Peter Beattie, who is now out of the game. He knew that I knew that the Traveston Dam proposal was a politically driven imperative because, under an arrangement made by Beattie and Goss, they sold the right dam site. Of course, eventually, we said it was a shit of a site, a shocking site, sorry.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Heffernan.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that sewage bit. I said to him, 'Peter, we're not going to savage your public servants; we're not going to play politics with people's livelihoods.' This proposition of wild rivers and the remedy to overcome that is playing politics with people's livelihoods. When I raised wild rivers with him Peter Beattie told me to my face: 'Bill, I had to do a deal to get the inner-city Brisbane preferences with the Wilderness Society and that is why we have done it. Eventually it will be turned into a World Heritage area.'

With the latest science it is an absolute insult to the human race with respect to the global food task to think that ownership of this country cannot be given as a commercial advantage to our Indigenous people. This is a disgrace. Unlike a lot of people in this place I have been and camped on the Cape York Peninsula and I understand the country. There are marvellous opportunities from some of those rivers within the first kilom­etre. They are as good as the Murrumbidgee River or the Liverpool Plains. Sure, there is a wet season and there is a dry season and we learnt the hard way from Humpty Doo that, if you go about it the wrong way, you end up with a mess on your hands. But to say to Indigenous people, 'We're not going to let you have a commercial agricultural adv­antage,' when they are going to be closest to the biggest market—two thirds of the world's population is going to live on their doorstep. You cannot tell me that the UN is going to sort out the people of Bangladesh or the 260 million people, up to 400 million people by 2070, who live on the great northern plain in China and who will have to be moved if they do not engineer a water solution. The UN is the world's largest most corrupt bureau­cracy—it does some good work but it is corrupt like most governments in Asia. Here we are today saying the Indigenous opport­unity in Cape York Peninsula ought to be tourism. Get your photo taken with a blackfella and a spear, what sort of crap is that?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (11:28): Order! Senator Heffernan.

What sort of rubbish is that? I cannot believe that Senator Fielding does not get this.

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

Oh, he does.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe he gets it. What we are saying is that we have the power as whitefellas to overpower the aspirations of the original owners of this country. These people simply want an economic opportunity. We are absolutely closing our eyes to what Mother Nature is saying about the planet. You can absolutely learn from the mistakes of the past in doing mosaic development of the north—absolutely learn from the past.

One of the greatest disgraces in the recent past is the overallocation of the Culgoa River. The Culgoa River, the Condamine-Balonne, has a mean annual flow of 1,237 gigalitres. We have allowed whitefellas without any environmental study to build 1,500 gigalitres of on-farm, off-river storage in a system that has an 830 per cent variable flow where from 1921 to 2009, 25 percent of the flow was in four years. We have allowed that to be developed to the point where those four years are every year. This is crazy. We can learn from the mistakes of the past but we can successfully allow the Indigenous people on Cape York Peninsula an economic opportunity. What is wrong with whitefellas? How cheap do we have to be to allow politics in this? Let someone deny that Peter Beattie made an arrangement with the Wilderness Society—he told it to my face—to get inner city preferences and set about a serious 100-year disadvantage by denying the greatest opportunity for our Indigenous people. If the science on the planet is right, northern Australia is going to provide an enormous opportunity in the future to participate in the global food task.

Sure, science has to take place and GM cropping has to take place, but guess who owns the bulk of the land up there, by one title or another? Our Indigenous people. We had a retort here from the Greens a second ago, 'Oh no, you're wrong, Bill'. That is all right if you are plaiting your armpits, smoking pot and living in Darling Point or somewhere. This is about reality and I am afraid that we are denying the aspirations of our Indigenous people.

To learn from the past we went over to 'We of the Never Never' at Mataranka. We went onto a property there owned by a young bloke called Kane Younghusband who had gone from Gilgandra to the Ord. He married a crackerjack sheila there—the daughter of the manager of Carlton Hill Station—and said, 'It is too dear here,' and went to Mataranka. He bought 2,800 acres for $10 an acre and cleared $1 million from melons in the year we were there simply by clearing a bit of it and putting in some irrigation.

Next door, trying their hardest, was an Indigenous property managed by the ILC. We went there and I said to this mob: 'What if one of your young Indigenous blokes wants to do what they have done next door? Would you give him a lease?' They said, 'Oh, we would give him some sort of authority to do it.' I said, 'But what happens if he got killed by a tractor and his wife wanted to go back to Darwin or somewhere? Would he be able to commercialise that lease arrange­ment?' They said, 'Oh no, he would have to surrender it.' I said to them, 'No bank will ever lend him the money to develop it if he does not have something to sell.' That is what is wrong with this system, and we bloody whitefellas are sitting here thinking, 'Gee, it's hot today; we'll turn on the air conditioner,' or 'It's cold today; we'll turn on the heater.' There is none of that up there. There are still somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 kids in the Northern Territory who have no high school to go to and we are worried about what is going on somewhere over on the other side of the world and feeling sorry for them. What about our own mob?

Let us go back to Cape York Peninsula. What is wrong with using the latest science to give these people an economic opportunity, for God's sake? If you go to Guyra in New South Wales you will see a 25-acre shed full of tomatoes that is a multimillion dollar enterprise. You do not need to have horizon-to-horizon develop­ment to have a successful commercial operation. What is wrong with giving these people the opportunity to do that? What is wrong with saying, 'I'm going to leave my farm to my kids?' What is wrong with that? No, it is good enough for us whitefellas but not good enough for our Indigenous people. (Time expired)

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have heard a number of debates in this chamber that have disturbed me, but some of the rubbish that the last speakers have spouted has concerned me in a major way. Since the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, delivered the apology in this parliament in 2007, there has been a great deal of support and cooperation between both sides of the House and both sides of this chamber to close the gap on Indigenous inequality. Work has taken place in health, in housing and in education, and there is work taking place right now in economic development and employment.

I completely reject the comments from Senator Boswell and Senator Macdonald that somehow there is a division between parties or that the Labor Party is for welfare and is opposed to economic development. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, I am working day in, day out with our job providers, with businesses and corporations and, most importantly, with Indigenous communities across the country. So I totally reject the comments from those senators today, and I believe that the opposite is taking place.

We are now seeing Indigenous businesses sprouting up across the country. These are not just small businesses, but businesses of all sizes. These Indigenous people are taking responsibility for their own lives and their own economic development, and govern­ments are supporting that. The Gillard government is supporting it, state govern­ments are supporting it, and up until now it has been bipartisan and we have worked together. Senator Scullion, who started this debate, put his case, but he understands that both sides of this parliament have a commitment to ensuring Indigenous people chart their own course of economic development. What this debate is really about, though, is finding the right balance between economic development on the one hand and environmental protection on the other. We as a government and as a country support Indigenous people in the cape to develop businesses, grow their local economies, create jobs and lift their people out of poverty and social disadvantage. We support that. It is something that we are working on closely with Indigenous communities. But anyone who has spent time talking to the traditional owners and others involved in the debate in the cape understands that there is not one Indigenous voice; there are many Indigenous voices, and many differing opinions as to how this legislation is affecting economic develop­ment and what policies are best to stimulate economic development. It is a complex debate. At the same time, the traditional owners who talk to you about what they are doing to foster economic development also understand the importance of protecting the pristine heritage environment. They support that too.

For me, the most important thing in this debate is to look at the facts—that is, how this legislation has been used. We have had a huge amount of consultation at the state government level and there has been consultation through a Senate committee inquiry as well as a lower house, or House of Representatives, inquiry. There have been a number of submissions from the traditional owners—and I have met with a number of them—and the Queensland government has also provided a submission and answers to question on notice. One of the Queensland government submissions to the inquiry states that since 2007 there have been 140 developments approved under this legislation—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They haven't been.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have been approved. While this legislation has been in place, not one proposal has been blocked—not one.

Senator Macdonald raised the issue of market gardens in the wild river protection areas, and it is an important point because it has been used in a number of other arguments. Again, he has got his facts wrong. You can have market gardens in the wild river areas. In the high-protection areas right next to the rivers, they have to be a certain size and less than four hectares. In the rest of the wild river areas, you can have market gardens of any size.

We as a government are happy to come in here and debate this issue day in, day out. My understanding was that today we would debate the bill and we would vote on it. Now I have been informed by Senator Scullion and Senator Parry that that will not take place. Obviously, that is disappointing to me and the rest of the government. We are very prepared to have a vote on the bill today and certainly, Senator Scullion, we believe it would be appropriate to do so.

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

I have been very restrained in this debate, so I thank the chair for recognising me. Finally, after two hours, I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7075:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 3), omit clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

     This Act commences the day after the commencement of the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Act 2011.

The amendment seeks to add a clause to the bill so that it commences the day after the commencement of the Native Title Amend­ment (Reform) Act 2011. The reason I am moving this amendment is that I have listened to this debate two or three times now and I find the hypocrisy almost unbearable. The coalition are the party that brought in Wik amendments on native title and that have not supported Green amendments to the Native Title Act in the past to do what they say this bill does—that is, give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders free, informed, prior consent. They want to limit it to a group of people in this country. They do not in fact want it to apply to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. They did not support Australia endorsing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was—I will give credit where credit is due—the Labor government.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what advantage have they—

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

My bill, the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2011, introduces other very important amendments to the Native Title Act that make it actually operable—because we know that the complex nature of that legislation has stopped people getting native title rights. So many barriers have been put in place that the native title system has become essentially unworkable in many cases. My bill seeks to put in place what the Aboriginal community have been crying out for. So who has been listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders? The Greens have been, so that we can make native title work—

Senator Boswell interjecting—

They do not, Senator Boswell! Senator Boswell, go and look at the election results in the Northern Territory. The Greens got 30 per cent of the vote in some areas, and do you know why? It is because they know that we are the ones who stand up for them—

Senator Scullion interjecting—

in the same way that we have stood up for them over native title. If you were genuine about supporting the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, you would support our native title amendments that would bring real and meaningful change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. So do not come in here and lecture all of us about how we do not care about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, because you do not have a leg to stand on in that debate. Support our native title amendments; then I will believe you care about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. That is why we have put this amendment forward. Chair, Senator Heffernan wants to make another ad hoc statement!

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like the senator to withdraw the statement that I do not care about our Indigenous people—

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan, you are taking a point of order, are you?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am taking a point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Make it a good one, and not a rambling—

I want Senator Siewert to withdraw the accusation that I do not care about Indigenous people.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

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

Senator Heffernan, if he does care about the future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, will support my amendment to the Native Title Act. I have moved this amendment so that the benefits of native title will flow to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I commend my amendment to the chamber.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill that the Greens have introduced includes a number of very positive reforms. There are a number of very good measures here. But I do not see it as being inconsistent with this piece of legislation for a number of reasons. The bill will go through a process. I am not sure whether the bill from the Australian Greens has gone off to committee at this stage or not.

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

It has.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has? Thank you. I have some concerns. Firstly, both the Queensland and Commonwealth governments, along with the Australian Greens, claim that a wild river declaration is not a future act under the Native Title Act. Therefore, the Native Title Act would not apply to wild rivers. Consequently, the bill proposed by the Australian Greens would not apply to wild rivers unless there is something within the bill that explicitly makes it apply. As I understand it, there is nothing in the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill that would make it apply to a wild river declaration in terms of issues of consent.

Secondly, the bill that we are currently considering would require a native title agreement regardless of whether a declaration is a future act. It would also apply to Aboriginal lands. Under the bill from the Australian Greens, the references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People are to be inserted in the objects of the Native Title Act in section 3. That is something that could be very useful and meaningful in terms of the operation of the Native Title Act. But I cannot see how this would make it apply to wild river declarations. So I am looking forward to the bill from the Greens regarding native title reform being brought on, because it contains a number of very worthy reforms. But I cannot see how this bill and the very worthy bill from the Australian Greens would be inconsistent.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the amendment from Senator Siewert, while we appreciate all the efforts that have been made, the government opposes the amendment on the basis that we do not believe that the bill that has been put forward by Senator Scullion is workable in any way. Therefore, there is no purpose in amending it.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly, I want to correct the record. There has been so much passion around the chamber today. Everybody has wanted to speak on this bill. Obviously, there will not be the opportunity to bring it to a vote. Senator Siewert, in regards to your amendment, it is terrific to see that you now have some conditionality for your support of our legislation. I accept that. That is a very heartening. I look forward to having some further deliberations with you on that matter. Sadly, it is very difficult to support an amendment that basically says, 'Senator Scullion, if you undertake to support our bill, when our legislation goes through then your legislation will in fact become law.' We have not seen your legislation. I have to say, Senator Siewert, that I am disappointed that you would paint the coalition as not being very focussed on ensuring that Aboriginal people, through land reform, can get a better deal. That is simply not the case.

Sadly, we will not have the opportunity to have a vote on this today. We have had some very interesting contributions, particularly from those opposite. I would like to move very quickly past the fences, the dams, the cows, the chooks and the sandpit, because they fundamentally have nothing to do with this legislation. This legislation intends to ensure that we have the same rights of application over land in a national park, for example, as we do over land in any other case. It is absolutely essential that we go back to providing consent mechanisms for every time any level of government deals with Aboriginal people. It is incumbent upon all of us. I understand the views of the other side, particularly those who come from the cape. I noticed that the North Queenslanders and other Queenslanders got a little bit more agitated than others, as I and my Territory counterparts often do. If we all had our druthers, we and those opposite would possibly be in a more balanced place regarding this issue than we are now. But I have to again say that I do not think it is fair to characterise the views of the people of Cape York as divided so that there are somehow two views. That means that, if one person in a hundred has a different view, there are two views in Cape York. That is not fair. The Cape York Land Council, which represents the vast majority of the land in Cape York and the vast majority of the wild river declarations, had a vote and decided that this should not be supported.

Progress reported.