Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I thank the member Mr Garland for bringing this motion. It is an incredibly important motion, and it puts appropriate pressure on government to pull up its socks and get on with this job, because it is way too long.
As Mr George just said, action speaks way louder than words. We do come in here every day and pay our respects to Aboriginal people, and yet we fail them time and time again, so we absolutely welcome this. I pay my respects to Aboriginal people and their elders past and present, and acknowledge the efforts of Ruth, Nala and Cody in coming into the Chamber today to listen to the first part of this debate.
What we need is respect. What we need is action, and it’s not just action on Aboriginal heritage protection. We need action on land returns. There have not been public land returns through this parliament for 20 years. This parliament and governments are being shown up time and time again by private individuals who are stepping up and donating to the Aboriginal community their own land for their benefit, or their own money so that the Aboriginal community can buy land. The Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania is actively asking for land returns through Giving Land Back.
We’re seeing active government decisions, and I’ll talk about this a little bit more. The Leader of the Greens touched on the four-wheel drive tracks on the Takayna coast, and the stadium, of course. Then we come to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975. We have to do better, we absolutely have to do better – and many people are looking at you, minister Archer, to do better on our behalf. You are delivering through this portfolio for Aboriginal people. You are delivering action, whether it be land or heritage protection for Aboriginal people, but you are doing it on our behalf, and we all have a significant debt to pay. We all have a significant responsibility, but only you can do it on our behalf. Not only are Aboriginal people looking at you, minister Archer, we are looking at you to take meaningful, tangible action on our behalf. Delay and dither has thus far been a hallmark of this government’s approach when it comes to Aboriginal heritage, and worse, active decisions that will impact on Aboriginal people. Whether it be land, whether it be truth and treaty, whether it be this act, we absolutely need it, and the heritage act is absolutely overdue, and that is acknowledged.
It was really great to hear you, minister, talk about Aboriginal heritage being not just the archaeological – not just the stones‑and‑bones approach to Aboriginal heritage, but it’s the spiritual element, it’s the connection, it’s the stories. That’s fundamentally important and that’s what Aboriginal people have been seeking and putting into this review for years and years now. A simple stones‑and‑bones approach to protecting Aboriginal heritage fails them and fails their heritage, because they look at the land in a more holistic way. They look at it as a living cultural landscape, and until our legislation actually moves beyond an archaeological approach, site‑based assessments and only protecting heritage if there’s a cave or if there’s a stone tool or a rock carving, it needs to look at things in a holistic and landscape scale. That is what is really important. The advice and the evidence from Aboriginal people has been utterly unequivocal in that regard.
I want to remind the minister that this is overdue. We all know this is overdue, but just a reminder that in July 2021, the former minister, minister Jaensch, tabled in this place a report on the review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 and it absolutely was unequivocal, and I quote – I will read into Hansard what it said:
The need for a new Act: The review has confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the Act is considerably out of date and that new legislation is required that expands the scope of the Act, beyond being mainly focused on mitigating the impacts of physical activities on Aboriginal heritage of archaeological significance.
That’s the cultural landscape.
It is clear that the Act itself does not provide effective mechanisms for protection, nor does it adequately consider the significance of Aboriginal heritage in the context of Aboriginal culture. This has led to a high level of dissatisfaction for the Act with Tasmanian Aboriginal people and among most non-Aboriginal stakeholders.
Tabled in this place was this acknowledgement that the act fails, so it’s very welcome to hear you put on the table here that recognition that we need to take action and some time lines around that. The problem is that in the face of a failed act, in the knowledge of a failed act, this government continues to make decisions to actively approve projects that will destroy Aboriginal heritage. Mr Garland has eloquently and passionately read out the values of Robbins Island they are 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 years strong and long and this is not only a failure of the act but is a failure of decision‑making. Minister, I am not sure if I heard you correctly there, but I think you said that Robbins Island, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, still needs to be assessed. That gives me some hope that if you and this government are true to its word, that it will recognise cultural landscapes, that it will act to protect Aboriginal cultural values, and you can still stop this development. You still can protect what is an irreplaceable Aboriginal cultural landscape and, to build on Mr Garland’s assessment of values, it isn’t just Aboriginal cultural values, they are the most important thing, but these are shared values as well.
Robinson, on his journeys, stopped at Pilitika with his captives and assistants to take refuge and to rest on his journey. So, it is part of a shared history as well; an action to protect Robbins Island is action to protect our collective shared history. Robbins Island is one of those developments that was approved in the face of a flawed act. We had a cable car on Kunanyi/Mt Wellington, thankfully not approved, but it was assessed under a flawed act. The report that was produced did not even meet the government’s own guidelines about how you produce a development. The Arm End Golf Course, similarly approved in the face of a flawed act. The Aboriginal Heritage Council, statutory body established under the Aboriginal Heritage Act to give advice to this government, has taken the remarkable step of now publishing position statements on its website and in relation to Pilitika/Robbins Island, it says:
The Aboriginal Heritage Council is deeply disappointed at learning that Minister for Environment and Water has made the decision to approve the proposed wind farm. Once again, Palawa country and heritage is, at best, compromised and, at worst, destroyed forever. Once again our community is left grieving for the knowledge of country and heritage, fighting for its protection. The Aboriginal Heritage Council will never support this project. [tbc]
Minister, when you come to this place looking at the permit application to destroy Aboriginal heritage on Pilitika/Robbins Island, the question is: will you be listening to your statutory advisory body who are saying that it will never support this project? Similarly, they have published position statements on Arm End development and similarly on the west coast off‑road vehicle strategy that Dr Woodruff spoke about and I will read a little bit of this:
The Aboriginal Heritage Council has serious concerns regarding the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service’s west coast off-road vehicle strategy.
This is your strategy, minister, this is your government strategy. You are taking this action and you are choosing to not only progress these developments in the face of community opposition, but progress them in the face of your own statutory bodies assessment. Honourable Speaker, I seek leave to table these three position statements from the Aboriginal Heritage Council.
THE SPEAKER – Have you circulated the papers to other members?
Mr BAYLEY – I have not, I’m sorry.
THE SPEAKER – Can I ask Dr Woodruff to circulate it to show the minister and a few other members and encourage the member just to talk a little bit for 30 seconds or so?
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you, Honourable Speaker, and in being cognisant of time, I just want to move on to touch on the four-wheel drive tracks in Takayna that the government is progressing and the Heritage Council opposes, and say that the remarkable thing about that was that the government did a market study into the tourism value of opening up those tracks before ‑ they’ve done that market study – but they haven’t done an aboriginal heritage study.
In relation to the stadium, Mr Garland touched on it but clearly the proponents report is clear when it comes to the statement and it acknowledges that the –
The SPEAKER – Can you just move the tabling of papers again for us, please?
Mr BAYLEY – I seek leave to table these three papers from the Aboriginal Heritage Council.
Leave granted.
Mr BAYLEY – Thank you, members, and acknowledging that I am running out of time, I want to say that the panel that assessed the Macquarie Point stadium was unequivocal in its condemnation of not only the project, but the government’s reports in relation to how it has consulted with the Aboriginal community about this project.
