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

The member for Lowe makes the point that that was a stunt. I think he is absolutely right: it was a stunt. But it was a stunt at the expense of the psychological wellbeing of people in Northern Australia. Today we find ourselves with the situation where, without any opportunity whatsoever for any member on this side of the House to adequately or thoroughly consider some 500 or more pages of legislation and associated explanatory memoranda, we are debating this legislation as it is rammed through the House. People all around Australia—Aboriginal leaders and people involved in Aboriginal organisations, health organisations and community organisations as well as those many Australians who care greatly about the prospects for Aboriginal communities to be self-sufficient and healthy and about the fact that there is abuse in these communities—are not part of this discussion at all. It is a total betrayal of the democratic process by this government. It is a total betrayal by the minister, who has travelled to these areas and who knows full well that it is all about consultation.

I will quickly read an extract of a resolution that has come from the health forum at the Garma Festival 2007. Aboriginal community leaders, health professionals and other concerned Australian community leaders who met at the Garma Festival health forum at Gulkula, Arnhem Land, call on the Australian government to abandon this legislation. They point out that there has been ‘no negotiation, courtesy or respect shown to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members and health professionals’. They are ‘particularly concerned that there are no evidence based reasons given for the changes to the land permit system and the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights act’. They specifically say that the government does not have to destabilise communal rights to land to effectively address sexual abuse, social dysfunction or poverty. These Aboriginal leaders point out that the proposed measures bear no resemblance to the ‘Sacred Children’ report that the minister has referred to and that, as such, they have no confidence in their effectiveness. Finally, I note the authors of the Little children are sacred report itself said, ‘The thrust of our recommendations is for there to be consultation and ownership of the community.’ These views then are entirely understandable, given the way that this legislation has come into the House and the reaction from Aboriginal communities to such a heavy-handed process.

Notwithstanding that, I want to make some comments about the legislation itself, particularly in relation to welfare reform and the Cape York trials, which have been championed and supported by the government, Noel Pearson and the Cape York Institute. Like a number of people in this House, I have had the opportunity to visit Cape York. I know Noel Pearson’s and the institute’s work well. I think it is absolutely appropriate for both sides of the House to acknowledge the contribution that Mr Pearson has made. It may be the case that some members and some Aboriginal leaders take exception to some of the views that he has put. That is to be expected when someone is putting views in a debate of this kind. But I think it needs to be put on the record—and I am more than willing to do this myself—that he has shown significant courage and honesty within his own community to stand up and confront the issue of alcohol that bedevils Aboriginal communities. Those of us who have travelled to and spent time in those communities recognise that alcohol is an intractable problem that significantly lessens people’s opportunities to reach their potential and that it contributes to some of the terrible child abuse that we have witnessed.

To that extent, the measures that are identified in this legislation are supported by Labor. Certainly, we recognise that alcohol control is critical but, at the same time, we say very clearly that, ultimately, what is needed is a long-term strategy. That long-term strategy devolves to a number of other areas—and there has been particular neglect of them by both the Northern Territory government and the federal government—that relate to the adequate provision of housing, health facilities and education. All the evidence from other countries where Indigenous communities have struggled with a history of dispossession and have aimed to get themselves back on their feet and build right-livelihood for themselves shows that, unless you provide substantial and additional resourcing that is targeted at education, including affirmative action policies—which has been the case in some parts of the United States and Canada—and unless you provide substantial and additional investment, particularly in housing and health, the likelihood is that the social disadvantage that we have seen visited on young Indigenous people in particular, particularly where there is overcrowding, will continue. That is the bottom line here. Let us be under no misapprehension at all: that is the bottom line.

Labor support the measures contained in this intervention legislation. We hope they will help arrest the terribly high levels of abuse of young children. But those measures in and of themselves will not and cannot deal with the ultimate question of responsibility, which has to be enacted by the community that has the power, the capital and the capacity to exercise the distribution from the federal budget and those communities who in some parts of Australia still live with shocking life expectancy and health statistics and very poor educational prospects. Years and years of underinvestment in Aboriginal communities must be reversed, and it must be done by this parliament.

The test of this legislation is whether it improves the safety of children. The member for Jagajaga made that clear in her remarks. That is something which Labor both accepts and understands as being absolutely critical. There is an additional test for this legislation, and that is to recognise those parts of it which do not go to the question of securing better protection for young Indigenous Australians as they grow up. Those matters that have been identified in the second reading amendment, including seeking exemption from the application of the Racial Discrimination Act, the removal of the permit system and so on, are exceptions. It seems that they have been included not fully recognising the consequences. The implications of the removal of the permit system are very clear. The police have said and anyone who has travelled in these regions knows that the likely exposure to risk, including from white and black abusers and perhaps paedophiles, is greater if we remove the permit system than if we do not. 

In addition, the compulsory land acquisition identified in this legislation goes to the heart of the contempt with which the government on occasions approaches these issues and deals with Aboriginal communities. Why have the negotiations between the town camps and the minister broken down? Correspondence has been sent and models have been suggested to the Prime Minister about community owned land, but there has been no response whatsoever. The government’s ideological cast does not allow it to enter into negotiations of that kind, particularly in a time of crisis. It much prefers to introduce legislation—which we have not had the opportunity to properly or thoroughly consider—and only recognise without any reservation the need to address questions of abuse and associated issues.

The Labor Party supports the legislation with the amendment it has moved. Labor is committed to land rights for Indigenous people and the Racial Discrimination Act—it is an important piece of legislation. We are also committed to consultation and specifically to closing—indeed, to eliminating—the life expectancy gap that many Indigenous people suffer. We are particularly committed to tackling the rate of Indigenous infant mortality and diseases such as rheumatic heart fever and others. We are committed, I hope more than anything else, to examining the measures that we should consider in this parliament, both in opposition and in government, to deal not only in the short term with the social abuse issues affecting young kids but overall with the prospects for our Indigenous people to have good livelihoods and the benefits of economic and cultural sustainability into the future. That means listening to and working with Indigenous people and providing the sorely needed long-term commitment genuinely espoused through this House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context