Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 and associated legislation before the House. I acknowledge the remarks of the member for Solomon, in particular his assertion—which, to me, was perhaps ironically put—that in some way the provision of land rights for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory has been a major contributor to the social and physical difficulties that they have faced in communities. I simply say to the member, as he departs the chamber—and he may not be in the chamber for a great deal longer, in any event—that the contribution by his own party and the Labor Party, in advancing the prospects for Indigenous communities which are seeking to reassert and regain access to land which was theirs, which they owned and occupied for millennia, should still be seen as one of the significant accomplishments of this parliament, notwithstanding the many grave issues and difficulties that Indigenous communities, particularly in the Top End, face.

It makes a travesty of recollecting history to take the bits that suit as opposed to the bits that do not, in trying to maintain an argument that in some way those who sought to see the introduction of land rights—the legislation that came through this parliament and the associated court cases, which I will refer to later—contributed to the kinds of issues that are addressed in the legislation before us. In relation to the determination or otherwise of where funds go, including royalty funds and funds in the Aboriginals Benefit Account, I hardly think that this member nor, indeed, the minister who brought this legislation into the House have much to tell us.

On 27 May 40 years ago, Australians at a referendum empowered the Commonwealth to make laws for Indigenous Australians. The majority of Australians supported that referendum overwhelmingly. Today we debate legislation introduced into the parliament that, in part, aims to directly address ongoing and indisputably harrowing incidents of abuse of Aboriginal children in communities not only through the Top End but also in Queensland. That abuse is sometimes occasioned by high levels of overcrowding, the lack of provision of suitable and adequate housing. Oftentimes it is as a consequence of alcohol abuse, the conspicuous gap in educational attainment and, additionally, the incidence of ill health common amongst some Aboriginal people in the Top End of Australia. However, I would assert very strongly, it is not occasioned by the fact that Indigenous people have been able to ultimately assert and gain some access to and control over land that was previously theirs.

Labor supports this legislation—with amendments that have been introduced by the member for Jagajaga in a second reading amendment, which I support strongly—because any measures that protect Indigenous children in the Top End deserve to be supported. There is primacy with the rights of children that they be able to begin their journey through life without threat of abuse, without harrowing experiences of violence or sexual abuse—because, after all, it is those early experiences that so determine the progress and the journey that people have in later life.

However, in between the referendum of 1967 and the introduction of this intervention legislation today, there has been an extensive history. It is a history of political and social struggle. It has been played out against the backdrop of governments of both political persuasions, at both the state and the federal level, endeavouring to address some of the consistent and ongoing issues of disadvantage that Aboriginal communities face. To that extent, it is the rights and interests of Indigenous people that have formed a common thread when we consider, first, the legislation that proposed the referendum and, second, subsequent legislation that has come into this House, including that occasioned by the Keating government and subsequently amended by the Howard government, of which we ought to be aware and should be noting as we debate this legislation. We also ought to note that the early campaigns for land rights were blocked by those opposite; that the court cases occasioned by that blockage, which saw the highest court in the land recognise the rights that Aboriginal people had to their land, were blocked and opposed by those sitting opposite; and that it was recourse to the highest courts of the land, particularly with the Wik and Mabo decisions that resulted from that action, that saw the beginning, only in the nineties, in Australian history of what was then an appropriate recognition and an appropriate provision of an entitlement to land that Aboriginal people had so long yearned for.

It is the case that the Howard government, from the beginning of its term, has taken a strongly ideological position on the question of Aboriginal people’s rights and entitlements. It is also the case that the 10-point plan saw an attempt, which was partially successful, by this government to diminish the rights originally established and identified by the court. It is the case that the Prime Minister’s refusal to say sorry has hamstrung the reconciliation endeavour. It is the case that the isolation of Indigenous leaders who do not accept the current assimilationist ideology of the government has been common. It is the case that there has been an underlying decrying of claims of attachment to land and the importance of culture and an assertion that these things are of no consequence as long as we have social disadvantage and, in particular, issues relating to sexual abuse, particularly of minors and of the young, which everybody in this House and those listening to this debate know to be a matter of the gravest consequence for us all. Yet at the same time the government has had no shortage of reports—no shortage of people from communities telling them of the level of concern about abuse and no shortage of recommendations and direct approaches, both to the Prime Minister and to senior ministers in the Howard government, pleading for the opportunity to be heard and for the opportunity for the government to act. The government has acted—but, in acting, it has chosen not to consult widely with the Aboriginal community. I think, more than anything else, that is an issue that Aboriginal people now feel great hurt about.

When introducing the legislation, the minister said that the Little children are sacred report confirmed what the government had been saying for some time. In fact, it did no such thing. The ‘Sacred Children’ report confirmed what child abuse experts, health professionals, women in Aboriginal communities and a series of reports by those who had looked at this issue had been saying for some time, which this government had taken no action on. Not only that, but the ‘Sacred Children’ report made a series of recommendations that the government has chosen not to accept. The government may be surprised that Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal leaders are somewhat concerned about this legislation coming into the House, but why wouldn’t they be? Six weeks ago, we had a press release. Then we had comment by the Prime Minister that parliament may have to resume in the winter break in order to make some determinations about legislation that was to be brought forward—

See this speech in context