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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

Document No. 10 is the 2008-09 report of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, which senators will recall was an initiative of the Howard government and which, in brief, succeeded in putting the proceeds of the sale of Telstra into good environmental projects around Australia.

In the NHT, as I refer to it, there were a number of grants in that year for parts of North Queensland and Northern Australia. What we as a government wanted to do was make sure that the natural heritage of those areas was supported. It was supported through NRM groups, where people who lived on the land—in the case of the gulf and Cape York, Indigenous people, cattleman, graziers and community dwellers—could do things cleverly, allowing for production to come off that land.

All the good work that the Natural Heritage Trust did do and could have done more of was abrogated when the Queensland government for purely political reasons introduced the wild rivers legislation. The way in which the wild rivers legislation was introduced into Queensland is well known: there is a coffee shop in South Brisbane where the Greens got in representatives of the Australian Labor Party state government and said to them, 'Look, if you want our preferences for the next election, you'll lock down Cape York.' So the Bligh government, never known for its—

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not right and you know it.

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

Senator Walters, a Green from Queensland. Weren't you at the meeting, Senator Walters?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get my name right.

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

Senator Waters, sorry. That is clearly understood as being what happened. Perhaps the good senator will indicate where the deal was done if it was not done in a coffee shop in South Brisbane. Bad though it was shutting down that part of Cape York adjacent to what are called wild rivers, we now have the proposition by the Greens, the Pugh Group and a few other loonies of the Left to shut down the whole of Cape York by declaring it a World Heritage area.

Anyone from Queensland would have seen the outrage from the Indigenous people when they heard that the Greens and others and the Labor Party were intending to put a World Heritage listing over the total landmass of Cape York. Can you imagine what that will do to Indigenous people up there?

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

Why don't you tell a bit of truth?

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

Senator, if you want to contribute to the debate you get up and tell me where I am wrong. You told us, Senator McLucas, just before the last election that there was not a detention base at the Air Force base near Weipa, remember? You told us that was not going to happen just before the last election.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you know that discussions across the chamber are disorderly.

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

I am sorry. I was provoked by the interjection, Madam Acting Deputy President. Giving Cape York World Heritage listing will destroy Indigenous communities up there and take away any prospect they may ever have of looking after themselves. It will condemn them to a life of welfare. I cannot but help think that it is for some reason part of the approach of the Australian Labor Party to ensure that Indigenous people are always subject to government funding and welfare, because they take away under Wild Rivers and under World Heritage listings the opportunity for Indigenous groups in those areas to conduct businesses, to participate in mining businesses and to conduct cattle operations. That has been well publicised. You would have seen in the Queensland press just a few days ago, if I recall correctly, how Indigenous leaders were incensed and were making their voices heard on the proposal that is floating around the make Cape York a World Heritage listed property.

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

I am indebted to Senator Macdonald for raising this issue. It is a very serious issue, World Heritage listing for Cape York. It is where most of the Indigenous people in Queensland live. About 16,000 Indigenous people live in Cape York. They are led by a very able Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson, who has come to the conclusion that welfare has destroyed his people. He is trying to lead them out of it.

In 1987, the then Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, under a deed of grant in trust, gave millions and millions of acres to the Indigenous people. He gave it to them under a deed of grant in trust to allow them to go to their local council and say, 'I want 20 acres to grow bananas,' or 'I want 10 acres to grow passionfruit' or whatever. That was deeded to them. Everyone was pretty happy with that until the Greens decided that they wanted Wild Rivers. Wild Rivers was put in as a forerunner to World Heritage listing. I could see this coming. It stood out so vividly that I asked Mr Warren Truss to get an assurance or an ironclad guarantee from the then environment minister, Mr Garrett, that World Heritage listing would not go ahead without the support of the Indigenous people. And he did; he said he would never do it without the support of the Indigenous people.

But now we are getting World Heritage by what I call creeping acquisition. Mr Burke said the other day: 'We'll just go and get some selective little places. Instead of listing the whole of Cape York, we will get little pieces—a beach here, a mountain there. And we will give $3 million.' Then the state government said, 'We'll give $3 million, too,' So that is $6 million for them to go out and buy the favours of Aboriginal people and to get them to support World Heritage listing. Fortunately, Noel Pearson saw this coming. He has rallied against it and told the people not to sell their heritage out. He told them that their land is worth more than that.

As Senator McLucas would be aware, at the last election it was a wipe-out for the Labor Party in the communities. Aboriginals who have traditionally voted Labor—who have done so for as long as I can remember—at the last election turned around. They turned around on Stradbroke Island, where the Greens demanded the closure of the mineral sands. There were 60 Indigenous jobs there, and they were wiped out. I walked onto the island and the Aboriginal people came to me and said: 'We have never voted for the National Party or the Liberal Party in our lives. We voted for them this time because the Labor Party is trying to destroy our livelihoods. What do we do? Do we sell out or stay here and catch planes up to Rockhampton?'

Then the Greens demanded World Heritage listing for the Lake Eyre Basin. To get that, they are going to promote Wild Rivers legislation for that. They are going to hold the line under Wild Rivers while they work to get World Heritage. I warn the graziers to not ever fall for it. You might think it attractive because it will stop mining, but once that World Heritage area is declared you will not be able to put a shovel or a post in the ground. You will be frozen in time on your properties.

The Greens—and Senator Macdonald alluded to this—want the Aboriginal people to be frozen in time. They talk about some sort of far out tourism that is never going to eventuate. Fortunately, we are seeing Aboriginal leaders in Western Australia and Aboriginal leaders in Queensland coming through the ranks, having the guts to lead their people and disassociate themselves from the green groups. I congratulate them both. These two Aboriginal leaders are great men and they deserve every bit of support. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia report for 2008-09. The National Trust definition of 'heritage' is 'all that we as a society wish to pass on to future generations'. That is a really important thing to understand: there are certain things that we need to pass on to future generations so that they understand why the world is as it is and why they are where they are at. Another definition of 'heritage' is 'the background from which one comes'. We teach history because it is important that our young people understand what has occurred in history. I was fascinated while here in the parliament some years ago to be talking to a group of young people who were here for a leadership forum. The topic of the Iraq War came up. One of them—and these were all well-educated young people in their twenties at university—said: 'What has Saddam Hussein ever done wrong? He has never hurt anyone. He has never invaded another country.' I must confess that I sat back in amazement as others in the group started echoing similar sentiments. When I asked them if they had heard of the first Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait, I was largely met by blank looks. I suddenly realised that most of these people were only 10 or 12 years old when that occurred. They were judging events that were occurring in the current day without any understanding of the world events and the personalities that had led to that. That was leading them to make a number of quite unsound judgments about why Australia was involved and why the world was taking action. My point is that our history curriculum therefore must cover and give people appropriate context of why the world is as it is. So I am deeply disturbed to see that the new national curriculum that is going to come into effect in 2013 is actually looking to remove the terms BC and AD, which have forever in our modern history set our calendars. BC, before Christ, or AD, in the year of our Lord, determines how we measure time. More importantly, it describes the background of our culture. When you are looking at heritage and the things that have led to the world being as it is, it is important that people understand that the Christian faith and the person of Christ, whether or not you believe that faith, have had a significant impact in the world. It informs you as you look around at different countries and try to understand why our culture is different—why some cultures value freedom, why some cultures value individual lives and rights and others do not.

Just this week we passed a motion here in the Senate looking, for example, at the actress Marzieh Vafamehr, who is getting 90 lashes and a year in jail for her role in a film. There is a pastor in the same country on death row because he has decided to change his religion. We have to ask the question: why is it that some cultures celebrate freedom, give people choices and options, and others do not? I believe it is important that, rather than writing out our cultural roots and our heritage, our national curriculum should be helping young people to understand the background of the world. I think it is political correctness gone mad and I for one would certainly welcome any opportunity we have in this place to change the national curriculum to make sure we accurately reflect the cultural heritage that we here in Australia have. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.