Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3548 ..

statement”, which I have just read out, “in the letter to Brendan Smyth today is incorrect.”

Further on, it says, naming an official from the heritage unit, “… took Don and Ruth”—that is Bell—“through the proposed Bill in detail, and they were comfortable with the approach in the Bill. Ruth said that she was happy to give her endorsement, while Don gave his in principle. They advised the person from the heritage unit that they would come to the Assembly and listen to the debate today.”

I have discussed the email with Mr Bell. I would like to show members the copy of the email that Mr Bell received—because he crumpled it up in anger, and then apologised to me—for two reasons. Mr and Mrs Bell tell me that they made no admission that the information they gave to Brendan Smyth yesterday was incorrect, and they also tell me that they gave no endorsement in principle or otherwise to the Heritage Bill. Mrs Bell said to me, “I have a copy. I have at last received a copy, and I want to take it home and read it.”

We are getting a clear message that members of the indigenous community have not had the time that they feel necessary to absorb what is in this bill. Mrs Shea said to me, “What I need is more time, because I don’t understand it.” Mrs Bell said to me, within the last hour, “I want to take it home and read it”—because today at about lunchtime was the first time she had received a copy of the bill. This is not to say that when they take it home, read it and absorb it and come back to the government and the opposition and say, “We are happy with this; we are not happy with that; we want it changed”, that it will necessarily be changed to what they want. But we at least need to know what they want, so we can make a decision.

The consultation on this bill has been a travesty. It has been an embarrassment to this minister, an embarrassment to his staff and an embarrassment to the officials. I believe—I do not know what I can say that is within the standing orders—that I have been lied to, and I believe that members of the indigenous community have been used. Mr Bell said to me, “I have been taken for a ride.” As a result of the discussions I have had with Mr Bell, I propose to move the motion circulated in my name. I move:

Omit all words after “that” and substitute the following words:

“(1) whilst not declining to agree to the Bill in principle, this Assembly:

(a) notes that neither the Minister for Urban Services nor his department has conducted consultation about the Heritage Bill 2004 as required by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth);

(b) condemns the Minister for:

(i) his failure to properly consult with the indigenous members of the ACT community in relation to the Heritage Bill 2004, according to law; and

(ii) allowing his staff to claim falsely that members of the indigenous community had been consulted in relation to the Heritage Bill 2004 and were satisfied with the Bill when this was not the case;

(c) requires the Minister for Urban Services to conduct open consultation in relation to the Heritage Bill 2004 with:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .