Division Description Changes — Bills — Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020; Second Reading — 31st Aug 2020

Change	Division
representatives vote 2020-08-31#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-09-11 09:19:01	Title Bills — Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020; Second Reading Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Keep second reading motion unchanged Description ~~<p class="speaker">Warren Snowdon</p>~~ <p>Just pursuing where I left off: in January of 2019 the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten, visited Kakadu and announced $220 million in funding to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the township of Jabiru to transition to a tourism based economy, which was part of the vision of the master plan that I spoke about earlier.</p> <p>In August of 2019, four parties formally executed a memorandum of understanding on the future of the Jabiru township, with the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley, signing the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commonwealth. Negotiations were led by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, as the architect of the way forward for Jabiru is an Indigenous-led multipurpose town.</p> The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon they voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-08-31.130.10) that "that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question." This vote was put after the Opposition proposed to amend the usual second reading motion. ### Usual second reading motion text > That this bill be now read a second time. Reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > *> "whilst not decli*ning to give the bill a second reading, the House: > *> (1) recognises the importance** of Aboriginal land rights for the self-determination First Nations people;* > *> (2) agrees that, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill, the right to self-determin*ation entails the entitlement of peoples to have control over their destiny and to be treated respectfully; > *> (3) notes that the recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable, heartbreaking and disrespectful to First N*ations people; and > *> (4) calls on** the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including:* > *>> (a) do everything in its power to free** the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas; and* >> >> (b) adequately invest in housing and essential services—including access to clean water—for First Nations people living on Native Title land". <p>In early 2019, the Australian government—the current government—promised $216 million and the Northern Territory government promised $131.5 million, which made a $347.5 million investment over 10 years to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the transition of the Jabiru township to a tourism services hub. This piece of legislation is important to the Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. It's something which we all support. I know the passage of this is very keenly awaited by Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. I know the benefits will accrue not only to those communities but to the people of the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole by the development that will take place.</p> <p>The other issue I want to briefly talk about is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton around the issue of the flag. It's important that we understand the significance of the Aboriginal flag to First Nations people in this country, and I'm not sure it, nor its history, is as broadly understood as it should be. The member for Barton spoke about its history and the important work that was done by Harold Thomas, who designed the flag, but the concerns we have now are that this flag is being used by a particular clothing company against the interests of the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I say that because I'm aware of letters which have been sent. I'm sure that Mr Thomas would not want to think that the flag could not be used or should not be used as a promotional tool for Aboriginal health, for example. Yet, I'm aware that WAM, the company which he's assigned rights to, has been making cease and desist demands of Aboriginal organisations such as health services about the use of the flag.</p> <p>Many of these organisations, Aboriginal organisations, use clothing as a promotional tool or as an encouragement for First Nations people, for example, to have health checks. Deadly Choices, a product of the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, is one of those organisations, and it now no longer uses the Aboriginal flag on its clothing because of a cease and desist letter from WAM. We're not talking about a multinational organisation here, or the AFL or the Rugby League. We're talking about Aboriginal community based organisations who see the flag as central to their purpose. What we're saying here is that it's inappropriate and wrong, really, for this company to exercise the rights they have in the way they are doing. I'd implore them to see what's going on here—there's a broader purpose. We indeed need to accept and look after the intellectual property rights and the copyright of Harold Thomas. That does not mean that we have to support the way in which the licence which has been issued to WAM is being utilised. This is a shonky organisation, as was demonstrated by the member for Barton. I support the amendments which the member for Barton has proposed in trying to release the flag for its good and public purpose. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p>~~ <p>I am very pleased to rise in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 and the amendments moved by the member for Barton in the federal parliament today. To begin, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people. It is their vision to transform Jabiru from a mining town to a centre for tourism and service provision within the world-renowned Kakadu National Park that this bill seeks to support.</p> <p>With the closure of the nearby Ranger uranium mine by January 2021 and the expiry of the existing Jabiru leasing arrangements in June 2021, the Mirarr people have developed a master plan, setting out their vision for Jabiru as:</p> ~~<p class="italic">A world leading ecologically sustainable, economically and socially vibrant community where traditional Aboriginal culture, all people and the natural environment flourishes.</p>~~ <p>This bill will transfer the ownership of the Jabiru township to the Mirarr people, following the closure of that nearby uranium mine. It will return the township to Aboriginal control—as it should be. The granting of this lease will be fundamental, realising the Mirarr peoples' vision for a post-mining future of this town. It has been a long time coming. The member for Barton's amendment to this bill today, which recognises the importance of self-determination for Aboriginal people, reminds us of just why this change in leasing arrangements now is so critical. The member for Barton has rightly highlighted the impact of the recently introduced restrictions on the Aboriginal flag as being both unacceptable and disrespectful to First Nations people.</p> <p>Tragically, Aboriginal people are finding themselves unable to use this important cultural symbol because the licensing rights now belong to a private company, WAM Clothing. This is a private, for-profit company founded by a Queensland businessman, Ben Wooster, who is one of two non-Indigenous owners. Mr Wooster's previous business venture was Birubi Art, which last year made history for all the wrong reasons. Now defunct, Birubi Art was found to be misleading consumers and was fined a record $2.3 million for selling thousands of Indonesian-made items as so-called genuine and authentic Aboriginal art. Regretfully, WAM is now strongly enforcing its legal rights by registering 'cease and desist' orders for those who use the Aboriginal flag.</p> <p>The Australian Aboriginal flag was designed by the Luritja artist Harold Thomas, in 1971. For Newcastle, the Aboriginal flag has always held a special place in our city, flying high above our city hall for more than four decades now. Indeed, Newcastle made history in 1977 as the first town or city in Australia to fly the Aboriginal flag on a civic building, thanks to the vision and tenacity of the trailblazing Labor lord mayor Joy Cummings. In 1995 the Aboriginal flag was recognised by the Australian government as an official flag of Australia, and the Governor-General's proclamation declared it 'to be the flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and to be known as the Australian Aboriginal flag'.</p> <p>The idea that something so deeply symbolic as an official flag of Australia could be sold or licensed to a private company is profoundly troubling. No other flag of Australia is licensed to a private, for-profit company—a company that, as I've said, is clearly determined to stop the very same people this flag represents from using the Aboriginal flag whenever they want without cost or the need for consent. The recent events that have denied Aboriginal people the right to use their flag are heartbreaking. In 2018 WAM Clothing purchased the exclusive worldwide copyright licence for reproducing the Aboriginal flag for use on clothing, and WAM hasn't been shy about enforcing its legal power, prohibiting Aboriginal people and Aboriginal-owned organisations from any use of the Aboriginal flag on clothing from May 2019 onwards. Queensland's Indigenous Wellbeing Centre, a charitable organisation, was shamefully forced to pay $2,200 in compensation when it used the Aboriginal flag on T-shirts that it then gave away to patients free of charge as an incentive to encourage Aboriginal people to come to the clinic for preventative health checks.</p> <p>The well-known red, yellow and black flag is steeped in history. It has come to represent the strength, resilience and resistance of First Nations people in Australia. It was first used in a 1971 march for National Aborigines Day, in Adelaide. Soon after, it was taken to Canberra, where it has flown at the Tent Embassy in front of Old Parliament House ever since. The Aboriginal flag was born out of resistance and struggle. It remains a powerful symbol of unity, pride and identity. It defies common sense, not to mention basic morality, that a non-Indigenous business owned and managed by a man with such a shocking record and blatant disregard for Indigenous cultural heritage can own this important national symbol and, essentially, charge Aboriginal people to use it.</p> <p>This second reading amendment calls on the government to do everything in its power to free the Aboriginal flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of the flag's original designer, Harold Thomas. I couldn't agree more. Flags are important cultural artefacts. They are powerful symbols that can mean many things to many people. They can represent our shared, albeit contested, histories. They help us to understand ourselves and they unite people under a common banner. They shouldn't be owned by anyone, much less a private, for-profit company. The Aboriginal flag is an iconic national symbol that should always be about people and pride, not profit. Twenty-five years ago, this parliament recognised the Aboriginal flag as an official flag of Australia. It should not be beyond us now to free the flag so that First Nations peoples and communities can use the flag whenever they want without cost and without the need for consent. It's now up to the Morrison government to act and to heed the calls of the almost 150,000 Australians who have now signed the online petition to free the Aboriginal flag and restore this important national symbol to public ownership.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Warren Snowdon~~
Just pursuing where I left off: in January of 2019 the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten, visited Kakadu and announced $220 million in funding to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the township of Jabiru to transition to a tourism based economy, which was part of the vision of the master plan that I spoke about earlier.
In August of 2019, four parties formally executed a memorandum of understanding on the future of the Jabiru township, with the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley, signing the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commonwealth. Negotiations were led by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, as the architect of the way forward for Jabiru is an Indigenous-led multipurpose town.
The majority voted in favour of keeping the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon they voted for a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-08-31.130.10) that "that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question." This vote was put after the Opposition proposed to amend the usual second reading motion.
### Usual second reading motion text
> *That this bill be now read a second time.*
Reading a bill for a second time is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:*
>
> *(1) recognises the importance of Aboriginal land rights for the self-determination First Nations people;*
>
> *(2) agrees that, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill, the right to self-determination entails the entitlement of peoples to have control over their destiny and to be treated respectfully;*
>
> *(3) notes that the recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable, heartbreaking and disrespectful to First Nations people; and*
>
> *(4) calls on the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including:*
>
>> *(a) do everything in its power to free the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas; and*
>>
>> *(b) adequately invest in housing and essential services—including access to clean water—for First Nations people living on Native Title land".*
In early 2019, the Australian government—the current government—promised $216 million and the Northern Territory government promised $131.5 million, which made a $347.5 million investment over 10 years to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the transition of the Jabiru township to a tourism services hub. This piece of legislation is important to the Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. It's something which we all support. I know the passage of this is very keenly awaited by Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. I know the benefits will accrue not only to those communities but to the people of the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole by the development that will take place.
The other issue I want to briefly talk about is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton around the issue of the flag. It's important that we understand the significance of the Aboriginal flag to First Nations people in this country, and I'm not sure it, nor its history, is as broadly understood as it should be. The member for Barton spoke about its history and the important work that was done by Harold Thomas, who designed the flag, but the concerns we have now are that this flag is being used by a particular clothing company against the interests of the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I say that because I'm aware of letters which have been sent. I'm sure that Mr Thomas would not want to think that the flag could not be used or should not be used as a promotional tool for Aboriginal health, for example. Yet, I'm aware that WAM, the company which he's assigned rights to, has been making cease and desist demands of Aboriginal organisations such as health services about the use of the flag.
Many of these organisations, Aboriginal organisations, use clothing as a promotional tool or as an encouragement for First Nations people, for example, to have health checks. Deadly Choices, a product of the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, is one of those organisations, and it now no longer uses the Aboriginal flag on its clothing because of a cease and desist letter from WAM. We're not talking about a multinational organisation here, or the AFL or the Rugby League. We're talking about Aboriginal community based organisations who see the flag as central to their purpose. What we're saying here is that it's inappropriate and wrong, really, for this company to exercise the rights they have in the way they are doing. I'd implore them to see what's going on here—there's a broader purpose. We indeed need to accept and look after the intellectual property rights and the copyright of Harold Thomas. That does not mean that we have to support the way in which the licence which has been issued to WAM is being utilised. This is a shonky organisation, as was demonstrated by the member for Barton. I support the amendments which the member for Barton has proposed in trying to release the flag for its good and public purpose. (Time expired)
~~Sharon Claydon~~
I am very pleased to rise in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 and the amendments moved by the member for Barton in the federal parliament today. To begin, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people. It is their vision to transform Jabiru from a mining town to a centre for tourism and service provision within the world-renowned Kakadu National Park that this bill seeks to support.
With the closure of the nearby Ranger uranium mine by January 2021 and the expiry of the existing Jabiru leasing arrangements in June 2021, the Mirarr people have developed a master plan, setting out their vision for Jabiru as:
~~A world leading ecologically sustainable, economically and socially vibrant community where traditional Aboriginal culture, all people and the natural environment flourishes.~~
This bill will transfer the ownership of the Jabiru township to the Mirarr people, following the closure of that nearby uranium mine. It will return the township to Aboriginal control—as it should be. The granting of this lease will be fundamental, realising the Mirarr peoples' vision for a post-mining future of this town. It has been a long time coming. The member for Barton's amendment to this bill today, which recognises the importance of self-determination for Aboriginal people, reminds us of just why this change in leasing arrangements now is so critical. The member for Barton has rightly highlighted the impact of the recently introduced restrictions on the Aboriginal flag as being both unacceptable and disrespectful to First Nations people.
Tragically, Aboriginal people are finding themselves unable to use this important cultural symbol because the licensing rights now belong to a private company, WAM Clothing. This is a private, for-profit company founded by a Queensland businessman, Ben Wooster, who is one of two non-Indigenous owners. Mr Wooster's previous business venture was Birubi Art, which last year made history for all the wrong reasons. Now defunct, Birubi Art was found to be misleading consumers and was fined a record $2.3 million for selling thousands of Indonesian-made items as so-called genuine and authentic Aboriginal art. Regretfully, WAM is now strongly enforcing its legal rights by registering 'cease and desist' orders for those who use the Aboriginal flag.
The Australian Aboriginal flag was designed by the Luritja artist Harold Thomas, in 1971. For Newcastle, the Aboriginal flag has always held a special place in our city, flying high above our city hall for more than four decades now. Indeed, Newcastle made history in 1977 as the first town or city in Australia to fly the Aboriginal flag on a civic building, thanks to the vision and tenacity of the trailblazing Labor lord mayor Joy Cummings. In 1995 the Aboriginal flag was recognised by the Australian government as an official flag of Australia, and the Governor-General's proclamation declared it 'to be the flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and to be known as the Australian Aboriginal flag'.
The idea that something so deeply symbolic as an official flag of Australia could be sold or licensed to a private company is profoundly troubling. No other flag of Australia is licensed to a private, for-profit company—a company that, as I've said, is clearly determined to stop the very same people this flag represents from using the Aboriginal flag whenever they want without cost or the need for consent. The recent events that have denied Aboriginal people the right to use their flag are heartbreaking. In 2018 WAM Clothing purchased the exclusive worldwide copyright licence for reproducing the Aboriginal flag for use on clothing, and WAM hasn't been shy about enforcing its legal power, prohibiting Aboriginal people and Aboriginal-owned organisations from any use of the Aboriginal flag on clothing from May 2019 onwards. Queensland's Indigenous Wellbeing Centre, a charitable organisation, was shamefully forced to pay $2,200 in compensation when it used the Aboriginal flag on T-shirts that it then gave away to patients free of charge as an incentive to encourage Aboriginal people to come to the clinic for preventative health checks.
The well-known red, yellow and black flag is steeped in history. It has come to represent the strength, resilience and resistance of First Nations people in Australia. It was first used in a 1971 march for National Aborigines Day, in Adelaide. Soon after, it was taken to Canberra, where it has flown at the Tent Embassy in front of Old Parliament House ever since. The Aboriginal flag was born out of resistance and struggle. It remains a powerful symbol of unity, pride and identity. It defies common sense, not to mention basic morality, that a non-Indigenous business owned and managed by a man with such a shocking record and blatant disregard for Indigenous cultural heritage can own this important national symbol and, essentially, charge Aboriginal people to use it.
This second reading amendment calls on the government to do everything in its power to free the Aboriginal flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of the flag's original designer, Harold Thomas. I couldn't agree more. Flags are important cultural artefacts. They are powerful symbols that can mean many things to many people. They can represent our shared, albeit contested, histories. They help us to understand ourselves and they unite people under a common banner. They shouldn't be owned by anyone, much less a private, for-profit company. The Aboriginal flag is an iconic national symbol that should always be about people and pride, not profit. Twenty-five years ago, this parliament recognised the Aboriginal flag as an official flag of Australia. It should not be beyond us now to free the flag so that First Nations peoples and communities can use the flag whenever they want without cost and without the need for consent. It's now up to the Morrison government to act and to heed the calls of the almost 150,000 Australians who have now signed the online petition to free the Aboriginal flag and restore this important national symbol to public ownership.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~