|
senate vote 2017-06-13#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-06-16 23:24:04
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I was saying in my previous contribution before question time that this is a very clear example of big business and big politics getting into bed with each other. This legislation we have here today is being rushed through the Senate because of one project, a large coal operation in Queensland—the Adani or Carmichael coalmine. What is crystal clear to those who understand the detail around this legislation and the impact of the project on local Indigenous communities is that it does not have local Indigenous consent.</p><p>I have a couple of articles here written by the Wangan and Jagalingou people in northern Queensland—I will just call them 'WJ'; that is what they call themselves in their articles. They are seeking Federal Court orders to strike out the reported Indigenous Land Use Agreements, the ILUAs, filed by Adani mine with the National Native Title Tribunal.</p>- The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-05-11.167.1) introduced by Labor Party Senator [Malarndirri McCarthy](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nt/malarndirri_mccarthy) (NT), which means the amendment was successful.
- ### What was the amendment?
- The amendment didn't change the bill at all, it just added words to the motion of [whether to agree with the bill's main idea](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-06-13/6). In parliamentary jargon, it added the words below to the motion that the bill be [read for a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html).
- ### Wording of the amendment
- > *At the end of the motion [to read the bill for a second time], add:*
- > *but the Senate expresses its disappointment with the regrettable way in which the Government has managed the process for consultation on the changes contained in the Bill, which has been a source of unnecessary angst, confusion and delay."*
- ### What is this bill all about?
- The bill is [a response](http://www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/nttt-government-introduces-legislation-address-mcglade-decision) to [McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors [2017] FCAFC 10](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/10.html?query=), which considers whether an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (**ILUA**) can be registered with the Native Title Registrar even if not all named parties have signed. An Indigenous Land Use Agreement is a voluntary agreement that native title groups can negotiate with other parties in relation to the use of land and waters.
- In that case, the Federal Court ruled that all parties must sign, which meant the Noongar Native Title agreement could not be registered (read more in [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/billon-dollar-noongar-native-title-deal-rejected-by-court/8235138)).
- This happened on 2 February, and the Government immediately moved to protect existing agreements with this bill. According to the [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5821_ems_25735e08-4d63-430f-a2f9-0285925a4599%22;rec=0), its purpose is to:
- * *confirm the legal status and enforceability of agreements which have been registered by the Native Title Registrar on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements without the signature of all members of a registered native title claimant (**RNTC**)*
- * *enable registration of agreements which have been made but have not yet been registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements, and*
- * *ensure that in the future, area ILUAs can be registered without requiring every member of the RNTC to be a party to the agreement.*
- More detail and background information is available in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd070).
<p>This ILUA would authorise extinguishment of native title and allow the mine to proceed against the wishes of the local Indigenous people. One of the grounds is that Adani does not have a valid ILUA capable of registration since the law was confirmed in the recent Federal Court decision in McGlade. We have heard a lot about McGlade already so far in this debate. The federal government has been attempting to push through amendments to the Native Title Act, which is what we are looking at in front of us today, to overturn the ruling in McGlade and to protect Adani's interests. The W&J council has vowed to do everything in its power to stop Adani's mega coalmine proceeding and will fight all the way to the High Court if necessary.</p><p>Senator Canavan has publicly said that Adani has local Indigenous support. He claimed that Westpac:</p><p class="italic">… have also turned their back on the indigenous peoples of Queensland by this decision, because this mine in the Galilee Basin is supported by the Wangan and Jagalingou peoples.</p><p class="italic">He said:</p><p class="italic">They met last year and voted on the mine, they voted on the mine 294 to one in support of it, yet that’s not good enough for Westpac.</p><p>That is a direct quote from the 'minister for coal', Senator Canavan. What he did not say was the detail about that meeting. Firstly, Westpac did not make a decision based on Aboriginal rights one way or the other. W&J believe it was the last thing on Westpac's mind. For the record, the W&J council has put out a media release and written a blog to say:</p><p class="italic">Adani didn’t ‘negotiate’ and achieve the free prior informed consent of the W&J people. The meeting, that all these barrackers for Adani’s mine cite, that seemingly voting 294 to 1, is only ‘a vote for the mine’ if it’s a true expression of the W&J traditional owners. But it’s not.</p><p class="italic">Over 220 of that meeting’s attendees are people who have never been involved in the W&J claim or decision making, and who are identified with other nations and claims, or didn’t identify an apical decent line.</p><p class="italic">They were bussed in and paid for at Adani’s considerable expense. The ‘natural majority’ of the claim group, who have three times rejected an ILUA with Adani, refused to participate in this stitch up of a meeting. They stayed away.</p><p>They were their own words. This is part of the evidence that the W&J people are presenting in their objection to Adani's attempt to register a land-use deal for the Carmichael mine and is included in their current case before the Federal Court to invalidate the application for registration of this 'sham' deal—once again in their own words—as an ILUA.</p><p>This is an example, as I said earlier, of big business and big politics not only riding roughshod over environmental concerns around developing the biggest coalmine in the world that will have a material impact on emissions and climate change but, if you believe the local Aboriginal community, riding roughshod over the Indigenous people of this area. Why the rush?</p><p>I would like to read a quote from a claimant in the Wangan and Jagalingou native claim. He is a traditional owner of the lands on which the Adani mine is proposed to be built, along with his family and many other families who are opposed to the mine. He says:</p><p class="italic">The amendment of the Native Title Act requires a detailed and nuanced approach that protects rather than undermines the property rights of the various clans and families that make up each native title claim area. This must be done with care as the failure to get it right will permit the property rights and interests of particular families and clans to be extinguished or impaired without their consent.</p><p class="italic">I encourage the members of federal parliament to take a deep breath, and come to terms with the fact that the property rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all over Australia will be affected by the proposed amendment to s 24CD of the Native Title Act. This amendment should not be rushed in order to appease some other agenda.</p><p>I think we have firmly established what that agenda is, and that agenda is to get the Adani coalmine built. That was Tony McAvoy. I would like to acknowledge in the chamber today the attendance of some of the W and J people. Thank you for being here today.</p><p>Let us be clear. We are rushing this legislation. The Greens pointed this out in our dissenting report to the legislation committee. We felt the reporting date needed to be set back, as more time needed to be spent on getting this right, taking into account the unintended consequences of this kind of legislation on what is a very complex and very sensitive issue and has been an incredibly critical issue to this country.</p><p>We have heard from the opposition that this is about getting balance. I sat through the first debate a couple of weeks ago. This is about getting a balance between business interests and local Indigenous rights. At least some of the Liberal-National Party are admitting that this is about business interests, although they are saying this is about getting balance. This is not about getting balance; this is about giving business what they want and it is about a particularly aggressive proposal by a multinational company, Adani, to build one of the biggest coalmines in the world at a time in history, on our watch, when the Great Barrier Reef has suffered back-to-back mass coral-bleaching events.</p><p>In the committee I am chairing I spoke to a scientist who has been studying water temperatures on coral reefs for 25 years and he said that they would never have predicted back-to-back bleaching events on the coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef. In my home state of Tasmania the waters off the coast are at again record high temperatures. Our giant kelp forests have now disappeared. For 10,000 years they used to span the state. They are gone. They are nurseries for crayfish, shellfish and a whole series of marine life. They are gone because of warming waters and severe storms. Just this weekend I found thousands more dead fish washed up on a beach on the east coast of Tasmania. The baby leather jacket, which is a subtropical species from Papua New Guinea, are washing up on the beaches of Tasmania because of climate change and warming waters.</p><p>This is a time when we should be acting on global warming and climate change, not building a coalmine because short-term political interests in this place are trying to prevent leakage of votes to One Nation in marginal coal seats in Queensland and New South Wales. That is what this is about—the short-term political gain for political parties by supporting a project, giving a project a free loan—$1 billion of concessional finance, which I finally got the Productivity Commission to admit during Senate estimates was a taxpayer subsidy—and potentially a royalties holiday. Why? Why are we going to such lengths to build one of the biggest coalmines in the world and screw the Indigenous people who do not want this mine built?</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Yes, they do.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>They have been very clear about that, Senator Brandis.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>You haven't spoken to them. I have.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I have read their correspondence and Senator Siewert, my colleague who I acknowledged earlier in the debate, has spoken with them and a large number of Indigenous communities across this country. We recognise that this is a very complex area. I have said that three times. This is about you trying to get a deal for a coal baron and a large multinational company so that you can secure votes and prevent leakage of votes to One Nation. That is what this is about, in my humble opinion, and no doubt in the opinion of many other people around this country who look at this and say: 'What's going on? Why are you so determined for this project to go ahead that you would do things like rushing this kind of legislation?' It is because you want to give certainty to a large multinational, which, may I say, has a very poor track record, not just in environmental terms but in social terms and in paying tax. Why would you go to these lengths?</p><p>It is time to draw a line in the sand if we are serious about getting native title right in this country and if we are serious about stopping climate change. By supporting this legislation here today, by voting for this, you are not only riding roughshod over the local Indigenous community, you are giving a green light, potentially, for the Adani mine to proceed. That is what this will do. We know that Senator Brandis is involved with the legal proceedings around decisions—that is my understanding; you can refute that later if you disagree with it. What we are deciding here today is not just a decision on this legislation; it is whether you support the Adani mine or not. That is really what it is for—let's be clear about that. Rushing through this legislation is about giving a large multinational business certainty.</p><p>I cannot believe that—given the debates we are having in this country around transitioning out of coal, clean energy targets, meeting our Paris agreements, trying to find new industries for coal workers and retraining, reskilling and all the things that we should be showing leadership on—we are politically supporting one of the largest coalmines in the world, a new coal development, at a time when 70,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef are at stake if the reef continues to bleach. The reef will not survive more mass bleachings, especially if they occur in the upcoming years—of that I can assure you. That is the evidence that we have heard from some of the best scientists in the world. There are already parts of the reef that will not recover, and that is not even looking at the ecosystem damage. There are things that we cannot even quantify in dollar terms.</p><p>Senator Brandis, when you get to speak, perhaps you can tell us why those jobs are so important for the Adani mine, why you are giving such preferential treatment to one company, why you are not showing any leadership on, or vision for, transitioning the economy and why we are rushing through very complex, very sensitive and critically important legislation today that we need to get right. Senator Siewert made it very clear in her contribution here that there are all sorts of things that were not looked at by the committee that affect these ILUAs and that potentially have very adverse consequences that we need to look at in a holistic way. The Greens will not be supporting this legislation in a vote today.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|