Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. The amendments proposed by the Rudd Labor government to the bill relate to the viewing of R18+ programs, the transportation of prohibited material, access to Aboriginal land and community stores.

The 2007 bill introduced by the coalition government was a result of the outcomes of the Little children are sacred report that followed an inquiry which involved regional mass meetings and extensive submissions. The bill was introduced to ensure the survival and development of children by protecting them from abuse and exploitation—a protection which is part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At no time was the bill introduced as a way of separating rights for different racial groups, as some are alluding. The bill presented to the House in 2007 was about protecting children irrespective of race or creed. The inquiry listened, learned and drew on the knowledge of others to find ways to better support the families and protect the children.

I would like to congratulate the board on their handling of the inquiry and the way they created an environment which enabled people to feel safe, enabling the very painful and confronting truth to be exposed. A lot was learnt from 45 community visits, 65 written submissions and over 260 individual meetings. Let me say again that this is about protecting children, children who are powerless to defend or protect themselves.

I find it incomprehensible that the Rudd Labor government has made amendments to the 2007 bill which will make it possible for communities in prescribed areas to have access again to R18+ material. The Little children are sacred report clearly stated that subscription based R18+ pornography provided through pay TV suppliers appeared to be easily accessible to minors.

An article in the Age on Thursday, 20 September, last year stated that complaints were made by Indigenous women about adult programs on cable and free-to-air television. According to the report, it appears that the availability of pornography is a way to groom children for sex. Having worked with many families, children and adult survivors impacted by sexual abuse, let me make it clear that, if a strong stand is not taken, this is exactly what will continue to happen.

The amendments to the bill mean a ban would only be considered at the request of the community and, following that, there must be adequate community consultation. I support community consultation but, when this consultation has the potential to put children and women further at risk and the potential to remove protections, I have concerns. The safety of a child is far more important, and that should be the priority.

I have concerns about the term ‘adequate community consultation’ under the proposed new section 127B. What percentage of the community must come forward for a request for a ban to be granted? What happens if key leaders in the community who are enabling children to have access to pornographic material and grooming the children for sex threaten and bully other community members, including children, who want to come forward but cannot for fear of retribution? How long would the consultation take before an outcome regarding the ban request could be determined? Is there an appeals process? How many children will be affected because of the delay in having the ban put in place as a result of the proposed changes by the government?

The damage done to these children will be significant. Part of the discussion paper entitled Youth and pornography in Australia looked at the effects on young people of being exposed to pornography. This discussion paper concluded that, when exposed to sexual content, young people had greater acceptance of pre-, extra- and non-marital and recreational sexual relations, greater factual knowledge of sex and increased belief that one’s peers are sexually active. When exposed to pornography, young children showed increased attitudinal support for sexual aggression, particularly in the context of the use of violent pornography; increased likelihood of sexually aggressive, coercive or harassing behaviour, particularly in the context of high-frequency consumption of pornography or exposure to violent pornography; emotional disturbance associated with seeing non-mainstream sexual behaviours; and inappropriate acceptance of non-mainstream sexual practices. Is this what the new Labor government want for the children and young people in Indigenous communities? The next generation in these communities and their potential future will be lost. Not placing value on children and young people will have a generational impact.

Also included in this discussion paper is the principle of the obscenity law which was based on the notion of harm to minors, which expressed the idea that young and impressionable minds are vulnerable to harmful thoughts which can lead to harmful acts. What is the Labor government thinking? A ban on X-rated material goes beyond subscription TV. We need to look broader than that. We need to look at future-proofing technological advancements and changes which see many pay-per-view style formats already on mobile phones or access to various X-rated material on mobile phones with internet access.

Many studies have been undertaken on the commonality between children exposed to child pornography and the child’s link to being sexually abused. However, there is minimal empirical research which explores the commonality between a child’s exposure to adult pornography and abuse. Research must be conducted in order for us to fully understand the commonality between a child exposed to any type of pornographic material and the link to sexual abuse. It is only when research such as this is done that we as a community can truly understand the long-term effects this has on a vulnerable child and what needs to be done to prevent abuse. I would suggest that such research be supported by the new government, with specific targeted funding. I strongly support the recommendation by the alternative government to amend the bill in line with the original blanket ban on all R+ rated pornography.

I also call on the Australian government to support the alternative government’s recommendation to amend the bill in line with the coalition’s original policy, which prohibits the transportation of all pornographic material through prescribed areas. There is nothing to stop a person who does not care about what is in the best interests of children stopping off in a prescribed area and providing prohibited material and then continuing on their way to an area outside the prescribed area.

The inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs also found that drugs and alcohol played a major role in the abuse of children. Allowing any type of prohibited material into a prescribed area indeed opens the door for abuse. This is a risk that cannot be taken. I say again: this is about protecting children and if it means a total ban then that is what needs to happen.

Over the years I have observed what I call gutless behaviour. Many families have walked through my door with children who have observed behaviour that one could not mention in this place. Other professionals have felt sympathy for the perpetrator, with no understanding of the impact of confronting unacceptable behaviour and of protecting women and children.

The government wants to reinstate the permit system for major Indigenous communities and to give power to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to provide certain people with access to Aboriginal land. How will the minister know who is and who is not safe? The minister may think she has a crystal ball or some capacity to be omnipresent. I think not. Warren Mundine, a well-respected Aboriginal leader, was quoted in the Weekend Australian as saying:

The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact, if you look at all of the reports that have come out in the last few years, crime has flourished under the permit system, so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems.

He further stated, ‘It actually embedded, and will continue to embed, these problems because some powerful people were able to get away with things without being watched.’ This amending legislation will not reduce crime. It will enable criminal behaviour to be hidden.

Many isolated communities rely on one central location for all their goods, often referred to as community stores. A number of these communities are located alongside or close to what are commonly known as roadhouses. They provide grocery items, drinks and often petrol. The Australian government has recognised the coalition government’s policy on community stores. I am pleased that this policy, which formed part of the coalition’s initial policy of 2007 and which ensured that a roadhouse which substantially provides a community with groceries and drinks may be licensed as a community store, is to remain.

Mr Deputy Speaker, 38 per cent of the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal population is under the age of 15. These children are our future and we cannot neglect them or let them down. As a nation we have a responsibility to protect our children, irrespective of race or creed. I have to question how genuine the Labor government are when it comes to having the best interests of children at heart. This so-called new policy will result in behaviour currently being engaged in flowing through to the next generation. I fear that if the bill proceeds in its current form the women and children of Indigenous communities will experience another decade or longer in pain and their voices will not be heard and their tears will not be seen.

The Australian dated Friday, 21 September 2007 focused on the Northern Territory intervention. Former Australian of the Year Galarrwuy Yunupingu, one of the nation’s most prominent Indigenous leaders, was noted as saying that he agreed to support the then government’s approach, following a discussion with the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. During the discussion, it was acknowledged that the aim of the government was to improve people’s lives.

I have grave concerns about the proposed amendments. Instead of moving forward to improve people’s lives, behaviour already hindering next generations from reaching their full potential will be systemically entrenched in communities by the failure of this Labor government to take a stand. I would like to state again the amendment put forward by the alternative government:

(1)

calls on the Federal Government to impose a blanket ban on all pornographic material in prescribed areas;

(2)

calls on the Federal Government to prohibit the transport of pornographic material through any prescribed area; and

(3)

urges the Federal Government to leave in place the permit system amendments that have enabled access to public land.

The additional recommendations proposed by the opposition need to be included in this bill. The welfare of these children and the future of Indigenous communities depend on doing what is right.

See this speech in context