AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 2000 >> [2000] IndigLawB 17

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Sutherland, Johanna --- "Federal Heritage Protection Bill: Senate Upgrade Rebuffed" [2000] IndigLawB 17; (2000) 4(27) Indigenous Law Bulletin 21


Federal Heritage Protection Bill:
Senate Upgrade Rebuffed

by Johanna Sutherland

On 26 November 1999, the Senate agreed to 179 amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 (Cth). The Bill is the Federal Government's legislative response to the recommendations of the Hon Justice Evatt's 1996 report on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).[1] On 6 December, the House of Representatives rejected all but twenty of those amendments. Those it did agree to were relatively minor.

Indigenous organisations, opposition Senators and the Government were to meet for further discussions in January and February, but hopes are not high that the Government will agree to additional amendments. If the opposition Senators insist on their amendments and the House of Representatives again refuses to agree, the Bill is likely to be laid aside, leaving the 1984 Act in place.

The opposition Senators' amendments propose the creation of an independent Commonwealth Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency, a Heritage Registrar, and an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council. The Bill had proposed the creation of a statutory office of Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection, and a Register of Claims for Protection. The opposition-preferred Agency would have powers to issue findings which would be binding on the Minister and require Ministerial orders to be issued, unless fresh evidence becomes available, or unless the order is not in 'the national interest' (defined to include international obligations).

The amendments would also strengthen the Bill's criteria in cl 26 for accrediting State and Territory indigenous heritage legislation by requiring the States and Territories to:

These amendments were developed mainly by Opposition Senators following significant consultations on the Act and the Bill. In addition to the Evatt review, consultations included two Government discussion papers,[2] two reports by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, a Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report,[3] and further consultations with indigenous leaders and others during the contested progress of the Bill through Parliament.[4]

Johanna Sutherland is a PhD student at the Australian National University.


[1]Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, 1996.

[2] ATSIC Heritage Act Review Task Force, National Standards for Protecting Indigenous Heritage: A Discussion Paper, Canberra, 1997; and ATSIC Heritage Act Review Task Force, Reforming the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984: A Discussion Paper, Canberra, 1997.

[3] Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, Canberra, 1999; Australia, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, Eleventh Report: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1998; Australia, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, Twelfth Report: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 1998.

[4] See generally the (1998) 4 (16) ILB special Heritage thematic issue.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/2000/17.html