PACE, Dr John, Private capacity [by audio link]

PODGORELEC, Mr John, Private capacity [by audio link]

STARKEY, Mr Andrew, Private capacity [by audio link]

STARKEY, Mr Bob, Private capacity [by audio link]

[15:11]

CHAIR: We'll kick off straightaway, in the interest of time. I welcome Messrs Andrew and Robert Starkey and company to give evidence today via teleconference. Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear?

Mr Podgorelec : I am a legal representative for Messrs Andrew and Robert Starkey.

Dr Pace : I am assisting John Podgorelec and Andrew and Bob Starkey in this matter.

CHAIR: Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of the parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded by Hansard, and it does attract parliamentary privilege. I now invite you to make an opening statement, and then we can move to a discussion.

Mr Podgorelec : Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. Andrew and Bob Starkey, who are here, behind me, have asked Dr Pace and I to begin proceedings on their behalf. We know we have limited time, so we've agreed to share the five minutes allotted for introductions so that you can dedicate as much time speaking with the men that will be most affected by the outcomes of your important work.

Andrew and Bob, in their role of senior lawmen, or badu, have spent their lives upholding the laws of their land. These laws are what helped their civilisation outlast all others. What they know is sacred and not for everyone, for, if everyone knew, that would jeopardise the security of their people. This aspect is similar to our classified information system. This responsibility has meant a life dedicated to heritage protection. So it won't surprise you then that the original reporting dates of the sites to which we may refer predate the existence of the region's native title bodies by decades. Indeed, most predate the existence of native title, pre 1994.

So, today, why are we here if what Rio Tinto did to the extraordinary caves was legal under domestic laws? Perhaps the short answer is twofold: (1) our laws don't reflect Australian values and (2) our laws are inconsistent with international human rights law. Apart from the obvious, why is the international human rights law so important? Well, it would appear it is because the international institutional investor community is guided by it. Indeed, many who control vast sums of investment funds, well beyond the national net worth of small nations, incorporate human rights instruments into their corporate charters.

There can be no doubt what immense contributions mining companies make to modern society at a social and economic level. It is also clear that certain minerals will play a critical role in resolving earth's current environmental challenges. To do this work, these companies require certainty. That said, how do we as a nation handle these apparently conflicting interests in a way that promotes confidence in its citizenry, global business community and investors? The simple answer is to bring our domestic laws into alignment with the international law, because this will mean that we are all singing from the same song sheet. Of course, this will require a reliable enforcement regime and, if properly administered, will provide all with the certainty that we seek.

If I may now briefly explain the relevance of particular attachments to our supplementary submission. Attachments A and B identify that, although related, native title rights and heritage protection rights are different. Worth keeping in mind in respect of the OECD matter, much care must be taken when relying on FPIC as a group right only. Under international human rights jurisprudence, the individual's right to quality consultation is paramount. Attachment C presents the view that free, prior and informed consent is a customary international law principle and, as such, is binding on Australia. Given the extraordinary pace at which Indigenous rights are developing internationally, I'm optimistic that a new heritage protection framework can be developed and be successful. And, of course, we are here to assist the committee in any way we can. I will now hand over to Dr Pace.

Dr Pace : Thank you. I would like to draw attention to attachment 4 to our supplementary submission of 25 June 2021. The attachment addresses the following: (1) the international human rights law that applies and, in particular, the standing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007; (2) the gap between domestic legislation relating to protection of Indigenous heritage and the applicable international human rights law; (3) the rights over natural resources under the applicable international human rights law and the prevailing practices in regard to Indigenous people in Australia; and (4) the situation regarding business and, in particular, the extractive industries and human rights, and especially the protection of Indigenous heritage.

Chair, the horrendous events that led to this inquiry, as well as the devastation of Indigenous heritage that continues to take place in South Australia and the rest of the country, have dramatised the need to put an end to reactive approaches and to move to a proactive approach inspired by Australia's international obligations. We therefore recommend: (1) upgrading our laws to make them consistent with international human rights norms; (2) defining processes for consultation, including, especially, the quality of consultation—which involves more than just being told what's about to happen—the opportunity to suggest alternatives, and, perhaps, the requirement of certification that certain thresholds have been met to make these processes homogeneous and to respect the criteria for assessing heritage sites; (3) starting with pragmatic steps, consisting, for example, of a state-wide assessment of the current realities on the ground, as we have tried to illustrate by the sample photographs in our submission, which, importantly, were efforts made by those who originally recorded the sites. Four, we submit that, once we know the full extent of the problem, such as how many sites there are and how many are at risk etcetera, we can design legislation to fix it. We can then build a culture of complementarity of interests to guide the future that awaits us.

May I now hand over to Andrew and Robert Starkey, senior Kokatha lawmen. These gentlemen embody the knowledge amassed through the centuries and, therefore, the expertise required to enable a reliable, authentic and unique assessment of the massive heritage which exists in their areas, which we hope will be the first step towards a solid policy and practice in response to your mandate. Thank you very much.

Mr A Starkey : Thank you, John. First of all, thank you, Chair and senators. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the traditional owners of the country on which we're meeting today, the Kuarna people.

Without further ado, I draw your attention to our supplementary submission, in particular, photos A, B, C and, further through, K and L. Photos A, B and C are of the ElectraNet easement, which is immediately behind the Davenport community. As you know, these easements are owned by a foreign entity. What these three photographs show is that local Port Augusta people are using the easements to dump illegal rubbish. These locations are all within the easements that ElectraNet own. Indeed, in photo B, you can see one of the towers. The easements are not fenced to keep people from getting onto them. These photographs were taken Thursday last week, and this location is about three kilometres from the CBD of Port Augusta.

I'll lead you to photograph L. This is an attempt by the local council to clean up the rubbish, which is almost an impossible task. You can see that the native vegetation has been stripped bare. There are banks in the background, where the rubbish has been pushed and picked up. As I mentioned, there's a loss of native habitat and vegetation. Also, the isolated and scattered artefacts through that area are lost forever.

The next photographs I'd like to draw your attention to are D and E. Photographs D and E are of a registered sacred site, which is the Lake Torrens site. It was registered years ago to protect it from mining. Photo D is of waste that's left behind from a drilling program in the late sixties through to the mid-seventies. It's within the site boundaries of the registered site. The registered site boundary is 500 metres from the shoreline of the lake. And photo E is a photograph of a newly erected fence that's been put out onto the registered site. This is work that has been undertaken by OZ Minerals.

Although a majority of the stakeholders in the program for the EBC carbon-offset areas were liaised with in 2013, it was only this year that we were contacted to give our guidance in particular to the erection of the fence. By the time we got on site, the local pastoralists had been engaged to put these fences in place, so they were already there when we got there, which was pretty disappointing for us. Technically—well, not technically but in actual fact—they have breached the Aboriginal Heritage Act by erecting a fence on a site without communicating with the original site cardholders, which are my brothers and me. Although we understand there is merit in this project and we agree with it in principle, what we disagree with is us being called in to this project at very late notice.

As to the rubbish that has been dumped there, in D, we had suggested to OZ Minerals that, given the financial assistance, we could have that rubbish removed. They were hesitant to go down that road. They wanted to engage the local pastoralists. But our experience is that there has already been considerable damage done, not only to this site but to other sites within their mining lease area. There has also been site damage done further afield. I happened to be speaking with a couple of senior lawmen from the APY Lands. There's been infringement upon sites up around Granite Downs, which has caused much distress to those locals up there.

As I've said, the EBC carbon-offset area is a significant area for us. There's a major stakeholder that hasn't been engaged yet, and that's the national park. The site, our site, is also covered by a national park. At this point, OZ Minerals haven't spoken with them at all. Moving on, I would like to hand over now to Brother Bob, who can elaborate on some of the other photographs.

Mr B Starkey : Right. If you look at photos F, G and H, they are of Lake Torrens, for which, in Kokatha myth and stories, there's a very important story or Tjukurpa to our people. In photo F, you can see debris which was left by those examples of mining from the lake and has left a legacy on our country of scars and tracks forever. In photo H, you can see a Kelaray drilling rig. To this date, they have not talked to us regarding heritage issues. They have said publicly that they had consulted all Aboriginal interested parties. That is a plausible falsehood. We have not been consulted at all, even though the Premier of the state identified us as an interested party, nor have they given us their Aboriginal heritage plan, regardless of our attempts at engagement and at talking to them. They've ignored us.

If you would like to look at a photo, I and J are at Coorlay Lagoon, which is another important myth cycle for us. These myths, as well as Lake Torrens, are to do with [Kokatha language not transcribed], which we call the Seven Sisters law. So Coorlay Lagoon, Lake Torrens and other lakes in our vicinity are very important because they are part of the Seven Sisters Tjukurpa and are women's sites.

You can see that J there is what we call the west tailings dam. There are three tailings dams there. There are two west ones and one south. When we get some good rain in that country, the tailings dams leach from the boundary of Coorlay Lagoon, and the water reaches down with the acid and copper concentrate that goes down into these pits. Then what happens is that you can see it turns green. The water is green with copper. When you get anything more than 20 to 30 millimetres of rain—a great big rain event—the whole of Coorlay Lagoon is actually filled up. So those tailings dams all leach into the rest of the lagoon.

Again, Coorlay Lagoon is a site. There are numerous sites around there in the sand dunes, and also there are two registered art sites. One is a cave painting site, and there is also a special ochre—what we call [Kokatha language not transcribed], which is a black ochre, which is a very sought-after ochre, especially in the Western Desert law, which we're a part of. This ochre is black. First it's put into a fire to make it soft, and then it's crushed up and ground up. When you put that ochre on for a special ceremony at night and you're near the fire, it glows. You can see the glitter comes out in it. It's a very sought-after ochre for the old people—the old [Kokatha language not transcribed] up in the north. They love that. That's a very sought-after ochre. Now I'll hand you back to Andrew.

Mr A Starkey : Just getting back to your program—

CHAIR: We need to start asking some questions. We're running out of time.

Mr A Starkey : Okay, if you want to ask some questions, Mr Chair.

CHAIR: Okay. Senator Dodson, would you like to lead off, please?

Senator DODSON: Thank you for the detailed submission and the photographs and very graphic representations of your observations of what's going on. I've just got a couple of simple questions. What's your view of the state heritage act?

Mr A Starkey : Our view is not one of very high regard. I've been in the game of site protection most of my life, and I cannot recall that anyone has ever been prosecuted under that act. We've lodged a complaint after complaint that go nowhere. The very reason why we didn't lodge a complaint about photograph D, where it went out onto the lake, and photograph E was because it's not boundary metred. A lot of mining companies, and indeed Commonwealth departments, such as Defence, operate on the premise that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for approval, and we're left wanting. I've sat as a member of a state heritage committee and it's a dog that has no teeth.

Senator DODSON: What, then, is your view of the Commonwealth acts: the environment act and the Aboriginal heritage protection act? Have you ever had to deal with either of them?

Mr A Starkey : Again, we feel that there needs to be a national approach to the protection of heritage, particularly the heritage of First Nations peoples. There needs to be work done together, with all nations, to come up with a way forward to protect our sites. Prior to white settlement there were 370-odd different languages spoken. We are one race; we're the very first people. We all have various similarities when it comes to our customary law and religion, and we've all suffered very similar effects to that of the Juukan Gorge.

Senator DODSON: In what way do you think Aboriginal people can be empowered to protect their own heritage under the legislation?

Mr A Starkey : The first instance is to actually have an audit, or a clear understanding, of what sites exist out there and to connect with the right people with the knowledge for that country. As we've already alluded to, native title is not the be-all and end-all; in fact, native title and heritage are two completely different things. Heritage was around long before native title. Native title gives you a right to negotiate. That brings delegates into your community, and all too often our communities are at loggerheads with developers and others. The tactic of divide and conquer is one that has been around for centuries, and that's what happens now. We've had Aboriginal people fighting Aboriginal people over issues that you don't need to fight over at all. We're all family; we're all one; we all come from the country. As time goes on, a lot of this knowledge is being lost, and we need to make sure that our knowledge is protected.

Senator DODSON: Thank you, gentlemen. In the interests of time I'll hand back to the chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Dodson. Senator Thorpe?

Senator THORPE: Thank you to Andrew and Robert Starkey for appearing today, particularly for sharing your story. I looked at some of those photos and wondered whether I had permission, as a black woman, even to see some of those pictures, because I feel the trauma that some of you fellas are feeling right now, particularly when sacred burial sites are being disturbed. I just want to acknowledge that.

Mr B Starkey : Thank you.

Senator THORPE: You request, in your submission, that provisions for compensation for loss should be made. What could such compensation be, and how could it ever make up for the extent of what our cultural heritage, or your cultural heritage, means to us?

Mr A Starkey : No amount of money is going to remedy the destruction of a site. Once it's damaged and disturbed, to an extent, it's totally unrepairable. It is a great loss to our community. It is often referred to as having a book such as the Bible and ripping a chapter out of the Bible. The old people have always said to us that the Bible is our own story. That's our story and whitefellas stole it from us. There are a lot of [inaudible] in the story to our culture. What money comes from that for education, making people aware of Aboriginal society and how our society existed well before Europeans came along? I'll leave it at that.

Senator THORPE: In that case, do you think that whitefellas, particularly, and those that want to destroy country, like mining companies and developers, need to have a better understanding of the law of the land that has existed for more than 60,000 years? Are you talking about that law of the land?

Mr A Starkey : It's the law of the land, and the law that governs us all. The law is there for us all. One of the things that we've learnt from the Juukan Gorge inquiry is that money talks. The miniscule amount that miners and developers are fined for destroying a site is nothing to them. A lot of the time they just go ahead and destroy the site knowing full well that the benefits they're going to get far outweigh the crime they've done. People at the top of the food chain will never be held accountable. In the instance of local reaction to it, Rio Tinto directors being stood down for they did with Juukan Gorge is what should happen across the board. They need to be held accountable for their actions.

Senator THORPE: Do you think that ElectraNet understands the principles of free, prior and informed consent?

Mr A Starkey : Not at all.

Senator THORPE: Have they attempted to practise any of that, or bring any of those values into any talks or negotiations with traditional owners?

Mr A Starkey : Well, not with this traditional owner. This is the concern we have with foreign-owned entities. A lot of the time their profits aren't spent in our communities; they go offshore. They feel that they're above the law. It's wrong what they do to our people; it is wrong.

Senator THORPE: How did they get consent in the first place?

Mr A Starkey : They never had consent from us to destroy sites. There was a community meeting held to endorse the Hill to Hill project, and the questions from the floor were: 'Well, this was the first time we'd heard of this project. You're asking the common law holders to comment on this, to give up our country when we feel that we've had no prior informed consent.' The work area clearance that was undertaken along that easement was never tabled with the relevant board of the native title group body, nor was it tabled with the cultural heritage committee of that same entity. Yet, here we were, being asked to give up country.

You know, it's hard for Aboriginal people to deny their children the right to education, a decent roof over their heads and clothes on their back. People are torn between their country and the benefits that are driven from these sorts of agreements.

Senator THORPE: That's coming through loud and clear. We've heard witnesses come up with examples of mining companies and proponents promising cars, jobs and money, and picking off people to gain the consent that creates a lot of division amongst our mobs and clans. Do you find that that is a true reflection of other witnesses' statements?

Mr A Starkey : Yes, exactly that. What Aboriginal people are very good at doing is taking a whitefella law and taking the best things out of it. Sadly, we're no orphan when it comes to this. When you get a community that has been granted native title and they have a PBC, over half of those entities come under administration in their 12 months. The reason for this is that we've had the grassroots people that bring them through. It took us 20 years to get our consent determination recognised. In order for that to happen, we've lost a lot of people—all our senior people—along the way. And the people with the knowledge—the people who got native title bodies native title—have been pushed aside by the entrepreneur types within our community. As I've said, our community had been under administration. ORIC came in and changed the make-up of our boards and put people on our boards who didn't know how they were Kokatha—how they were related, to be a Kokatha person. One of the board members, who happened to be the chair, didn't even know that Kokatha had native title through the consent determination. Yet these are the people that are appointed by the government for two years to manage our organisations. It's a sad reflection on what happens to a native title body over a very short period of time. I'll leave it at that. Do you have any more questions for me, Senators?

Senator THORPE: That also is something that continues to come up during this inquiry, and what I think the committee would like further explanation on, because I think there's a lack of understanding around it, is: what are we comparing 'grassroots' to? One of the questions that has come from the committee is: how do we know who to deal with when everyone's rowing with one another? And we know that that was the whole point of native title in the first place: to make us all row amongst each other for scraps of land. But, in your view, what do you say about that? What is grassroots? Who are the people who these mining companies, and anyone who wants to do business on country, talk to? And how do they do that?

Mr A Starkey : In the first instance, and as we've already alluded to, native title is a relatively new thing. Prior to that, developers knew where they went to when they wanted clearances et cetera. I can only speak from experience and for myself and my brothers. In and around the Woomera area alone, I have 80 sites attributed to me; between myself and my brothers there are at least 260-odd sites. Some of those sites were because of our dear uncle, who was a senior lawman for that area. That responsibility for that country is now mine and my brothers' to look after. We hold the law for that country. I was involved many years ago with the return of sacred objects to senior lawmen throughout the Western Desert. They were part of the Strehlow collection. We came up with several words for those objects, and we referred to them as sacred title deeds. Those objects give you the right to be able to talk for your country. The modern day equivalent to that is: if you own your house block, then you've got the deeds to the land, so you can deal with that as you wish. But it is imperative that developers go to the people with the knowledge of the land, and they are the site card holders. The people that recorded the sites are people off of the land.

Senator THORPE: My next question is around the way forward. Something that has also come up is a traffic-light system where clans and nations and tribes can come together and respectfully agree that a red light for an area means: 'Absolutely no go. No negotiation. It's got to be protected under every circumstance.' Yellow means: 'Okay, we can negotiate that particular piece of land.' And green means: 'There are no sites of significance. It's not going to affect songlines and so forth.' What are your views on something as simplistic as that, that clans and nations could possibly agree upon?

Mr A Starkey : Systems like that, depending on the location and then the people around and involved in it, probably would have some sort of merit. But there's no stopping a developer if they want to get on to that country.

We took on the South Australian government many years ago—Starkey versus State of South Australia. We beat them, and then over a series of 10 years or more they changed the legislation to make it easier for miners to get onto our great lakes. As I said earlier, there were over 700 different language groups in Australia prior to white settlement. We're one race, but we're different. Each of us hold different customary beliefs and we just need to concentrate on those beliefs—our customary beliefs that bind us all together—and get those right before we move on to the traffic light system or whatever system people come up with. As we've said, you have to talk to the people of the country to be able to get the right story and move forward.

Senator THORPE: Just in the interests of time, I'll put some questions on notice. But do you believe that systemic racism plays a part in trying to block the protection of cultural heritage in this country at both the state and federal levels?

Mr A Starkey : Yes we believe that. Developers use whatever mechanisms are at their disposal to get the end result. That may well be dividing and conquering a community; giving certain members of a community benefits and encouraging them to give approval over something where they know full well that other people there, who take their religion and culture very strongly, would not give their approval for. They go to the right Aboriginal people to give them what they want, at the end of the day.

Senator THORPE: Thank you, brother, and all power to you. Back to you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you. We'll get Mr Snowdon to wind it up.

Mr SNOWDON: Good afternoon, Andrew and Robert—how are you? It has been a while!

Mr B Starkey : It's been a long time.

Mr A Starkey : It was 1997?

Mr SNOWDON: That's right, it was too. I thank you and your legal advisers for your evidence. I'm going to ask a question which you may be able to answer—I don't know the answer. If you go across the western side of the Stuart Highway, up in the north-west, you're on APY lands and subject to the Pitjantjatjara land rights act. How are your rights different, if they are different, from the rights you have where you are?

Mr A Starkey : As you know, the Pitjantjatjara land rights act was granted to the Pitjantjatjara crew up there many years ago, as there was to Maralinga Tjarutja.

Mr SNOWDON: Yes.

Mr A Starkey : One of the things that's happening now in the state is that there's a push for rights. Those two entities already have land rights status but, as time goes on, sadly, the people with the knowledge of the land are passing on and the younger people coming on have a different appreciation of law and culture and what it is they want from the land. As I mentioned earlier, desecration of sacred sites occurs right across this vast country of ours. I made particular reference to OZ Minerals. They've impacted on sites around our country—again, it's the same up there at Granite Downs.

When we look at what's happening in the APY lands, it saddens me to see that there's a lot of infighting and that some of the rep bodies are fighting amongst themselves. That's pretty well known around the place. In our society and in all societies, things move in a circle. History has a way of repeating itself. I do understand where you're coming from, Warren, but the thing for us is, when we were trying to put this submission together about impacts on our society, particularly on our cultural heritage, it started many, many, many years ago. Some of the images you see are of what has happened recently. I worked for the Department of Defence for more than 12 years. The impacts created by Defence all those years ago, we still live with today.

The biggest stone tool collection in the South Australian Museum is from Woomera. Why? Because back in the day, back in the fifties through to the late eighties, there was a group called Woomera Natural History Society that was a big collector of stone tools. That's why the biggest collection of stone tools amassed in the South Australian Museum are from that end of the world. Defence employees at the time were actively encouraged to collect stone tools around areas where they had instrument buildings, where they had launch sites, where they had areas of operation. You go to Woomera today, you cannot find a stone tool; they have all been picked up.

I have a database, from the South Australian Museum, that lists 2,000 individual sites that were collected from. There was no consultation with Aboriginal people. The people who donated those samples were all employees of Defence. There was no consultation whatsoever. Myself and my brother, we're patriots of this country. We defend our country. We take great pride in the fact that Defence trained on our country. We've had forefathers who fought in the First World War. My great-great-uncle is buried at Villiers-Bretonneau. My dad's brother was a Rat of Tobruk. He was a machine gun operator; he was a Rat of Tobruk. We understand, but there has to be common ground when it comes to training areas if there's a conflict. Fair enough that there's a hidden cost to war—humans are killed and things like that—but our country and our environment are suffering because of the inverse impacts of Defence.

The training areas up at Woomera have been utilised for decades. Those lands are permanently fouled with ordnance. The legislation is such that, at the time of the trial or exercise, the land becomes Commonwealth owned and controlled. Once the exercise is finished, it reverts back to state land—to pastoral country, to native title country. We have to manoeuvre ourselves around unexploded ordnance; areas are permanently fouled with all sorts of defence materiel. There's the new era of materials where carbon fibre is used. Carbon fibre is one of the most carcinogenic materials known to man. Yet, once Defence trials have been activated and completed, they walk away from that site. We're allowed to go back into that site. Where's that going to leave our families in the near future? You all understand and know what happened with the British tests out at Maralinga. The western end of that Kokathacountry was decimated because of those tests. Every person in that area today is still suffering the effects of those tests. The legacy for us will be handed down from generation to generation, particularly around the activities of Defence.

There is a photograph that I would draw your attention to, if I've got time. It's photograph X. I'm standing on a road. In very close proximity to there is what they call the PASTA—the Parakeelya air static target area. It's a piece of state pastoral land. That's an area that's used for stand-off weapons; they get dropped in there. The debris left behind from that is carbon fibre, which is, as I mentioned, carcinogenic. They dropped the round in. That was an UXO, so it was a closed area. The day after the trial they told the pastoralist, 'We've put a safety template in an area where you cannot enter.' Eight months later—eight months later!—I found out about it and asked Defence, 'Why did you not inform all stakeholders that there was a UXO?' 'Oh, it was a technical error.' They blamed Canberra.

We were back up there in March this year, when this photo was taken. Before we went up there, we asked if we could have access to this site. They said, 'Yes, the ordnance is now removed and next is the roadblock.' You can imagine our shock when we got up there and the sign was still in place and the UXO was still out there. Only yesterday, I rang the range to ask what the situation was with the UXO, and I was told: 'We're uncertain. There's a new guy that started a month ago, and he's said no-one is to enter the area.' Yet before this they said we could go in there. So it's good luck rather than good management that no-one has been killed or maimed.

Mr SNOWDON: Have there been any discussions at all with Defence about ILUAs over that native title land?

Mr A Starkey : We've got an ILUA with Defence. This gets back to the area of consultation. There are very small areas of Commonwealth owned land, and native title has been deemed extinguished in those areas. We want to get into those areas to do site verifications and check that our sites are in good repair, but we're told that we can't go in there—the native title body doesn't want us to go in there because it may upset some of their members. Well, I'm a member; I'm a senior lawman. Yet Defence have denied me access to my own country.

Mr SNOWDON: Thanks, mate. I appreciate that. It's a sad story.

Mr A Starkey : It is indeed.

Mr SNOWDON: Thank you for your evidence. Thank you both.

Mr A Starkey : Thank you, Senator.

Mr SNOWDON: No, don't call me a senator!

CHAIR: He's unworthy of being a senator!

Mr A Starkey : Actually, Senator Dodson, his sidekick happened to be your brother.

Mr SNOWDON: That's it. Mick Dodson and I did some work with Andrew many years ago.

CHAIR: Have you finished reminiscing there, Snowdon?

Mr SNOWDON: Yes. It was good reminiscing.

CHAIR: Thank you very much indeed for coming today. If there's any additional information you would like to provide, please forward it on to the secretariat by 20 July this year. You'll be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence, and that will give you an opportunity to request any corrections to transcription errors. If the committee has any further questions, we'll send them to you in writing through the secretariat. Thanks again. You were very comprehensive, and we appreciated the evidence that you presented. Thank you very much.

Committee adjourned at 16 : 02