Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is obvious in 2008 that, regardless of one’s ethnic origin, one ought to be entitled to certain basic rights. The LNP, when in office prior to the last election, took a very important step forward with respect to intervening in the Northern Territory to guarantee Indigenous Australians who live in the Territory rights that other Australians regularly have. I am pleased tonight to have the opportunity of joining in the debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. This bill makes amendments to two pieces of legislation that were introduced last year for the purpose of affording improved protection for Indigenous children in the Northern Territory of Australia.

The Liberal-National Party government introduced restrictions and tougher guidelines to act as an improved safety barrier against the exploitation of Indigenous people and, specifically, Indigenous children. These measures were designed to assist the communities of the Northern Territory, but, sadly, the changes in this bill proposed by the government tend to undermine those very important reforms. The bill suggests a watering down of the strict conditions proposed by the Liberal-National Party government in relation to the broadcasting into these communities of pay TV programming that has an R18+ classification. The LNP team introduced legislation that banned pay TV pornography—an important restriction that aimed to help to prevent situations that we have read about in the media in which young children are exposed to sexually explicit programming in order to desensitise them and to groom them for sexual abuse. No-one on any side of the parliament would support such action. It is well known that those who are mistreated in this way when they are young are highly likely to have problems when they are older and quite often become abusers themselves.

The widespread ban on pornographic programming has a sensible and long-reaching benefit, a benefit that would actually reach through time and offer protection to potential victims who may not even have been born yet by helping to break the chain of abuse that is often handed down from one generation to the next, often through explicit videos and TV programs. However, this bill which we are debating tonight—the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008—modifies that ban so that it becomes only a partial ban. The changes in this bill mean that pornographic pay TV programming will only be restricted to the community at its request. Unfortunately, this opens the doors for communities to allow pornography, with decisions on this issue quite possibly to be made by those who have little regard for the safety and health of the children.

The Liberal-National Party is concerned that there is little detail about any appeals processes that are available to those members of the community who are opposed to any decision to allow the R18+ programming. The bill goes further, sadly, in that it removes a total ban on the transporting of banned material through certain prescribed areas. This is a ban that could be regarded as the ultimate of safeguards against pornography and other banned products in that it helps prevent such items falling off the back of a truck in an area in which they are deemed to be unwanted and unhelpful. I would argue strongly that that would be in all areas. The provisions of this bill allow certain items to be transported through a restricted area if they are proven to have as their final destination a location that is not within the restricted, prescribed area. The change is akin to introducing a physical loophole that may result in restricted and banned material in fact finding its way into communities that would otherwise have bans in place. These two changes outlined above do not assist in the overall aim of affording protection to the most vulnerable in Indigenous communities.

Thirdly, this bill reintroduces a requirement for permits to be acquired before access can be gained for certain areas of significant land. The previous Liberal-National Party government had reduced the restrictions for access for some 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land, or about 1/500th of that land. Permits were no longer required for larger public townships, connecting road corridors and common land in the community. The list of people who were allowed into and allowed to remain on Aboriginal land was increased, and the Liberal-National Party government introduced a ministerial power to allow authority to be given to a specified person. The legislation also ensured that sacred sites and those covered by leases remained protected and that cultural ceremonies were afforded appropriate restrictions and safeguards.

Sadly, the changes provided for in the bill before the chamber repeal that permit system and reintroduce the restrictions for access to the land. This comes in the light of a discussion paper released by Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs that suggests that the restricted access supported by the permit system has not prevented abuse, violence and drug trafficking in these communities. There are suggestions that the permit system helped to close the communities to certain levels of outside scrutiny.

Finally, the bill enacts an initiative that mirrors exactly a policy initiative of the LNP government of last year, in which roadhouses could be recognised as community stores in those areas in which local community members rely substantially on the roadhouse for groceries, drinks and other essential items. This is a sensible initiative in that it improves the convenience for those who live in remote regions and do not have the same ready access to shopping centres and grocery stores that is taken for granted in other parts of Australia.

The LNP suggest a second reading amendment to this bill to maintain the blanket ban on pornographic pay TV programming, keep the blanket ban on the transport of prohibited items through restricted areas and maintain the LNP initiative regarding permits. We do, however, support the provisions to recognise roadhouses as community stores. We cannot support the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams—as you yourself would understand—unless this amendment is accepted.

See this speech in context