Mr HOLDING (11:52 AM) —It is with some regret that I rise to oppose the legislation before us, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 , because I think it is thoughtless legislation and I think it is ill-conceived. But, most seriously, it seems to me that the legislation does not really go to the question of indigenous culture but to Australian culture. I make the comparison with, for example, the Lascaux Caves in France which have been closed to tourists in order to preserve them. France sees them as being part of the human heritage of Europe—French in origin but relevant to European civilisation. In my view, many of those paintings—given what I have seen in the pictures of them—do not compare with many of the older rock art paintings in the Northern Territory that date back more than 30,000 years. They are not only of significance to Aboriginal culture but of significance to the broader culture of Australia which will emerge.

It is interesting that the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) has the power, if an important object of Australian art is purchased and is being taken overseas, to intervene to prevent that. There is no suggestion in this narrow framework that that power should be shared with a state minister for the arts. I find it fascinating that the states were creations long before we had a Commonwealth. In all those years, when has there been a significant and legitimate demand on behalf of the states that this is a field that they should occupy? Where is the record of achievement of the states in the preservation of Aboriginal culture and heritage? It is only in the last 10 or 15 years that there have been developments. One of the problems that confronts the states is of course the shortage of funds. No state minister for Aboriginal affairs has the sort of financial backing which would enable him to do the things which the people of Australia said very clearly in a referendum were a prerogative of the Commonwealth.

If the states feel so deeply about this, where is the evidence brought forward by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron), who is still feeling his way, in a somewhat clumsy way, through his role? The exception is South Australia where there has been significant state involvement in the preservation of Aboriginal land and the creation of a museum of world significance for the preservation of Aboriginal culture. Within that, of course, there are areas where what is kept there is secret and can be seen only with the relevant permission of the people to whom those objects are of great significance. It is not an accident that it was a state Labor government which preceded the Commonwealth in this area. There were no hassles between the government of South Australia and the government of the Commonwealth, as it then was, about land rights.

Let us look at the situation in Australia today. I never thought I would live to see a day when, in any part of Australia, we would have a race based election. I never thought I would see it. I do not believe—

Mr Cadman —What's it got to do with the bill?

Mr HOLDING —I will tell you what it has got to do with the bill. We will have a race based election because the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the government do not understand the significance of what is occurring.

Mr Campbell —There is no race based election; that's nonsense.

Mr HOLDING —You wouldn't know. The only experience I really recall with you—I sometimes regret it because I admire some of your speeches—is the simple occasion when we were in the middle of the desert and your statements about land rights meant that I had to intervene to stop you being speared. But that is an old story.

Mr Campbell interjecting—

Mr HOLDING —No, you have forgotten it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports should continue with his remarks on the bill.

Mr HOLDING —You are quite right. If there is a feeling, a deeply felt need, within the states that they have to participate in the preservation, development and encouragement of the culture and heritage of Aboriginal people, where outside South Australia is the track record? There has been some achievement in the Northern Territory in the preservation of rock art. That owes a great deal to the museum and, in particular, the work of Mr George Chalaupka, who has spent a lifetime, with the confidence of Aboriginal people, going out and finding areas of rock art. The work that he has done has been honoured by the award to him of an Order of Australia. But, importantly, apart from those sorts of achievements, there is very little evidence in any of the state legislatures—with the exception of South Australia—of a committed record of seeing indigenous culture as part of the continuing heritage which is valuable to the development of Australian culture.

In Victoria, there are still areas which are relevant and known to Aboriginal people, but much of that culture has been destroyed. Let us look at the record in my own state. It took years for the Bolte government—despite the objections of members of the National Party—to hand back Lake Tyres. When a Labor government in Victoria handed back Framlingham, that decision was defeated in the Legislative Council and it required Commonwealth intervention to produce that result.

If one looks at Queensland's history, the so-called areas which were there to protect Aboriginal people were run like concentration camps. The former member for Kennedy, who was an Aboriginal affairs minister in that state, did his best. He was continually on the phone seeking Commonwealth financial assistance for a range of projects and on many occasions we were able to help him. But, apart from his commitment, there was no commitment. There were many projects that he had and wanted, but in most instances the tab came to the Commonwealth.

What is the motivation of this government? They have got a committee that does not approve of this. They have got a significant legal judgment from a significant Australian lawyer, Justice Evatt, that says that this is not a legally desirable thing—

Mr Robert Brown —Or moral.

Mr HOLDING —Or moral. I take the comment of my colleague. What is the motivation? Is it that the new Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs feels so overcome by his responsibilities that, despite the concerns of the community that he as a minister is supposed to represent, he says, `Well, we are going to give this to the states, and in some areas we might help out occasionally'? This is a responsibility that the people of Australia have given to the Commonwealth. I do not say that the Commonwealth should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The Commonwealth can be supportive of initiatives taken by the states, but where were those initiatives? As I say, South Australia stands out as a monument, but where are those initiatives? That is the problem.

In my view, we have got a minister who has yielded and a government that has yielded to some of the sleazy demands that have come from various dominant white industries in the area who feel continuously offended when they want a development to take place when there are legitimate Aboriginal concerns which have to be dealt with by a Commonwealth minister. It is a lot easier to say, `We will give the responsibility over to the states and the state minister can deal with it.' We know how certain of the state ministers will deal with it. When you look at the history of land grants that came from the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory, after all the hearings, after all the process and when the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs acted in respect of those processes and signed off to grant areas of land which were of significance to Aboriginal people, on every occasion it was straight into the High Court. There was no worry about the expenditure of public moneys, and case after case was lost.

The state governments are keen to have development, as we are keen to have development. But, if there is some miner which says, `We reckon there is a bit of alluvial gold or mineral deposit we can dig up, or a bit of oil,' and it is in an area of significance to Aboriginal people, an art area, does anybody honestly believe that the state minister is going to say, `There are a lot of problems about this. We will have to confer with Aboriginal people'? You look at the track record. There is nobody on the other side of the House who does not know what will happen in that circumstance, because the track record in so many instances is that every initiative taken by the Commonwealth in this area has been opposed by state legislatures which have had their own criteria of what they see as reasonable development.

This minister has been here long enough to know that he must have the support and confidence of Aboriginal people. Whatever his capacities as a physician and surgeon, he knows very little about Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal tradition. On what basis does he say to Aboriginal people, `Some state minister will make a decision about the future of areas of land, the future of artworks, that are of significance to your people. I'm too busy. If it becomes too messy, I might get involved'? What is all that about? It is about a view of Aboriginal people and their rights to preserve their culture and their spiritual beliefs. It would be a pretty game minister who would try to tell the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne or Sydney which sacred objects were theirs and that the minister would take over responsibility for it. The same is true of the Jewish community and the Anglican community.

There is a view latent within this government and within this Prime Minister which says, `They are only Aboriginals, their spiritual views are not quite like ours, so we will give this issue of the preservation of their culture and their spiritual beliefs over to a group of state ministers.' They know what will happen, and the Aboriginal people know what will happen. The fact is that this Prime Minister is prepared to put his name to it and stay silent on this, just as he has stayed silent in respect of the racist utterances of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) so that we now have a race based election in this country for the first time. I do not believe the Prime Minister is a racist, I do not believe many of my political colleagues on the other side have a racist bone in their body, but racism devel ops when good people and good members who are opposed to it do not take a positive stand against it. It is as simple is that. I believe it was important for the Prime Minister to come out much earlier, but that is another matter.

What is also important is that, when you are dealing with the spiritual values and culture of any group of Australian citizens, you do not make decisions that have not involved them. As I have said, you would not do that to any of the significant religions within this community. What makes Aboriginal spiritual beliefs less worthy of the recognition of this government and less worthy of a sensitive approach by this government to deal with these issues? You are not only betraying the Aboriginal people of Australia but setting back the heritage of all Australian peoples.

The one thing I have learnt about Aboriginal people is that, in terms of their beliefs, once they feel that they can trust you and they know you, there is a willingness to share and there is a willingness to incorporate that in the history, the tradition and the emerging culture of the Australian people. This legislation is going to set that back.

I hope that the amendments which will undoubtedly be moved in the Senate will be listened to by the government because this legislation as it stands requires an explanation from the government before it gets to the Senate. If the states were always so hot to trot on these issues, why is the record of the great majority of the states so bad in this area? Until that question is answered, I believe the only proper course for this House is to support the views of the shadow minister and to pursue those in the Senate. Unfortunately, that will be another issue on which this House should speak with one voice but will again be divided in terms of the rights of our indigenous people. And that is yet another black mark against this government.