Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's final report, A way forward. I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land I'm on and the traditional owners all over the country. I pay my respects to elders past and present and to the continued practice of caring for country and culture.

This was a significant inquiry that shone a light on the many ways in which First Nations cultural heritage is destroyed in this country. Sometimes this destruction is even encouraged. While Juukan Gorge was a wake-up call for many Australians, the wilful and legal destruction of cultural heritage is not new for First Nations people. As the final report clearly shows, First Nations people across Western Australia have been experiencing the impact of inadequate legislation for decades. Commonwealth and state governments are prioritising the interests of mining companies over the protection of cultural heritage, and gag clauses have been used for decades to prevent First Nations people from speaking out on activities that are happening on country.

I was pleased to see the committee recommend that the gag clauses and clauses restricting First Nations people's access to Commonwealth heritage protections should be prohibited. The committee has made important recommendations that, if enacted, have the power to change the way we protect and preserve tangible and intangible heritage. The committee recommends the implementation of a new Commonwealth legislative framework for cultural heritage protection at a national level, developed through a process co-designed with First Nations people. As my colleague Senator Thorpe noted, it's important that this entire process be First Nations led. The committee also recommends that this new legislation set out minimum standards for state and territory heritage protections, consistent with relevant international law, including the international Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Dhawura Ngilan: avision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in Australia.

I would like to highlight what's going on in my home state, Western Australia, to demonstrate why a national framework for cultural heritage protection is so important. As outlined in the final report, the main legal framework for cultural heritage in WA is currently the Aboriginal Heritage Act of 1972 of WA. This is completely inadequate. This act enables the legal destruction of cultural heritage and does not respect the right of self-determination or free, prior and informed consent. It serves the interests of mining companies, not of the community. There is strong agreement that new legislation and regulations are needed to replace the current act, with the WA government embarking on a reform process over the past 18 months. However, the draft legislation that has been presented to the community is not strong enough to prevent the destruction that occurred at Juukan Gorge.

Claims of consultation have been nothing more than one-way stakeholder engagement, frustrating many First Nations people to the point that they walked out. The WA Cultural Heritage Alliance, which has representation of cultural owners from across the state, have met with the minister but have been told that the consultation period is now closed and no further comments on the draft will be accepted. Community hasn't even seen the final draft of this bill and are afraid that it will be introduced and rushed through by a majority Labor government without the voices of First Nations people being heard. This is simply unacceptable.

The draft bill does not meet best-practice international standards. It is incompatible with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and does not meet the minimum standards set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The core problem with this bill is that it fails to recognise First Nations people as the primary decision-makers in the protection of their cultural heritage. There are strong concerns that the bill will make it worse and actually take us backwards. In part, this is because the bill gives proponents the power to decide on what constitutes First Nations cultural heritage and to make critical judgements about whether their proposed activities will actually destroy heritage. Proponents should not be making decisions about cultural heritage. This does not meet the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

The draft bill will also give the minister the final say over the destruction of First Nations cultural heritage, and it does not include an appeals process. Any decision-making can be overturned by the minister in the social and economic interests of the state. This enables the minister to authorise the destruction of cultural heritage and this risks replicating the process we have had with section 18C all over again. All decision-making around cultural heritage must rest with the traditional owners, not mining companies or the minister. In my home state, section 18C has become a damage-by-permit system which actually facilitates the capacity of mining companies to legally destroy First Nations cultural heritage.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.