Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

He mentioned some of what is happening in Cape York but without sufficient acknowledgement of the work of Noel Pearson. What Noel Pearson has done is draw attention to the fact that welfare is a poison which is killing his people. What Noel Pearson has done is stress the right of Aboriginal people to take responsibility for their lives, because without that grasping of responsibility there will be no lasting improvement to the situation of Aboriginal people in this country.

There was too much about government in the Prime Minister’s statement and not enough about the individuals and communities who must also be active if people’s lives are to be changed. There was a bewildering array of programs, a massive litany of spending, but as we listened to the Prime Minister’s statement no-one with familiarity with this area could help but observe that it is very easy to spend money in this area but much, much harder to make a difference. Of course, like everyone in this chamber listening to the Prime Minister’s statement, I welcome the improvements in infant mortality, I welcome what seemed to be improvements in life expectancy, I am pleased about the improved retention rates in schools and I obviously take great satisfaction in the improved employment outcomes for Aboriginal people. But I also note that the only hard indicators that could be provided to us by the Prime Minister referred mostly to periods of former governments. I suppose it would have been too much to expect any word of acknowledgement in this House for the good work done by other prime ministers and other governments, but I think it is important for me to acknowledge in this House the good work of other prime ministers and other governments in this matter.

Prime Minister John Howard was no less committed to the welfare of Indigenous people than the current Prime Minister. Former Indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough was no less committed to the welfare of Indigenous people than Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin. I pay tribute to them for their good work as I acknowledge the good intentions and the beginnings of some good work by members opposite. But, if there was one note in the Prime Minister’s statement which I found unsettling and which I suspect other members found unsettling, it was a note of self-congratulation—the suggestion that it is only now that real progress is being made, that it is only now that real cooperation is taking place, that it is only now that true understanding has dawned on the Australian people because of the work of the current government. Each generation tends to know a little more than its predecessor, but I think in this matter above all it is incumbent on us to remember that we are but pygmies and if we see far it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants. There were giants in this land long before this generation and their work should be acknowledged. This generation is different from its predecessors, not necessarily better, and our descendants will look at us and they will think that we have made mistakes just as we now look at our forebears and think that they made mistakes.

I now turn to some of the specific programs that were mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement—first, the Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program in the Northern Territory. I am pleased that the Prime Minister was able to tell us that two houses have now been readied for occupancy, that two families now have the keys to new houses as a result of this program. But I think it would be wrong of me not to remind this House that progress has been very slow and that there has been much process but little performance so far in this program. As members would probably recall, more than $45 million had been spent in this program without a single house being completed. I do acknowledge the work of the minister, who sent extra bureaucrats from Canberra to the Northern Territory to try to improve things—and I trust that things have improved, because she told this House a few months ago that if things did not improve the program would be wholly taken over by the Commonwealth. We will be continuing to monitor this program to try to ensure that the new timetables which appear to have been set really are kept. It is important that Indigenous people are not let down by governments which are more talk than they are action, and this is a program which has not started well. If it has, as the Prime Minister suggested today, improved, that is good, but we will certainly be carefully noting further developments in this area.

I also note the comments of the Prime Minister about changes to the welfare quarantining regime in the Northern Territory. One of the greatest achievements of the former government was having the guts to make the emergency intervention in the Northern Territory. It was a very difficult thing to do, because it overturned a generation of thinking and practice in this area. Again, I should note the support which members opposite provided to the emergency intervention when it was announced in the middle of 2007; I thank them. But I must also note that, while the government has maintained the terminology of the intervention and to some extent the programs of the intervention, I fear it has removed it is heart.

I know what the government is trying to do with its changes to the welfare quarantining regime and I respect its desire to ensure that there is not one rule for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and another rule for other Australians in the Northern Territory. I respect that, but I think it would be better off extending the current welfare quarantining regime in the 73 emergency conventions more widely than it would be extending a watered down version of those quarantine rules more widely—because, let there be no doubt about it, that is what is happening. Welfare quarantining in the 73 intervention communities is being watered down. Instead of applying to all government benefits, it will only apply to those people on unemployment benefits who have been on that benefit for 13 weeks in the case of people under 25 and for a year in the case of people over 25. I support the extension of welfare quarantining and I note that it was made possible by the legislative changes of the former government, but I think that it is important that we take steps forward and do not accompany one step forwards with what might be an even bigger step backwards in the case of the 17,000 people currently under welfare quarantining in the remote communities of the Northern Territory.

I note the Prime Minister’s statement as to numbers. He said in this parliament today that currently there are over 16,000 subject to quarantine and, as a result of the changes, the number will go up to 20,000. I hope he is right. I think this number is significant and it should be subject to further probing, because it is important that the welfare-quarantining rules begun by the former government are extended by the current government, not watered down.

I also would be keen to know, in the appropriate context, just what consultation the government has had with the women, in particular, of the 73 emergency communities of the Northern Territory, given that it is the women of Hermannsburg and the women of Yuendumu who have been so passionately in favour of the welfare quarantining, which has put food on their families’ tables and which has been so significant in reducing the amount of money that has been gambled or spent on alcohol in these communities.

Like the Prime Minister, I want to see a deeper engagement by all Australians in the lives of Indigenous people; I want to see a deeper engagement by government in improving the lives of Indigenous people. I was disappointed that I did not hear anything in the Prime Minister’s statement today acknowledging one of the fundamental problems of governance in remote Indigenous Australia, and that is the lack of long-term involvement by the same officials, whose decisions are so important, in the communities that are affected by their decisions.

On one of my early trips to Cape York, I was asked by one of my interlocutors whether I was just another ‘seagull’. This is the term that the Indigenous people have for government officials—white guys who fly in, scratch around and then fly out. Not for a second would I deprecate the work that officials are trying to do. Not for a second would I undervalue the goodwill and sincerity that they are bringing to the task. But the truth is it is very difficult to make a difference to communities that you do not have a long-term involvement with. That is one of the big changes that needs to take place if we really are going to make a difference to the remote Indigenous communities of outback Australia. We have to have senior people who are sufficiently committed to the task to spend not weeks, not months but years living amongst the people who are so affected by the decisions that they make.

I was also a little disappointed in the Prime Minister’s statement in that he did not seem to appreciate the importance of Aboriginal people having, in Noel Pearson’s words, ‘skin in the game’. Of course we all want to see better housing for Aboriginal people, particularly in remote areas where housing standards are so poor. But why can’t we have more Aboriginal people involved in building the houses rather than just living in the houses? I know every new contract to build houses is accompanied by official statements about the role of Aboriginal people in their construction and about the importance of training Aboriginal people in the actual carrying out of the program, but all too often these are just words; there is very little, if any, involvement of Aboriginal people in the construction of their homes.

One of the current projects of Noel Pearson and the Cape York Institute is to try to ensure that in at least some communities in Cape York the houses are not just built by QBuild, the Queensland government contracting arm, but they are built by Aboriginal people. I very much hope that, on my annual trip to Cape York later in the year, I will be able to assist in that process and be with some Aboriginal people in the construction of their own homes.

It was good to hear the Prime Minister talking about the progress that has been made in encouraging large Australian businesses to be more interested in employing many Aboriginal people. The Indigenous employment covenant which Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest has inspired is one of the very encouraging contemporary developments when it comes to long-term improvements in the lives of Aboriginal people. I pay tribute to Andrew Forrest and all his collaborators in this task. I also pay tribute to Warren Mundine, the former President of the Australian Labor Party, one of the most significant contemporary Aboriginal leaders, for his work in this area.

But what about self-employment? Why is it that Aboriginal people have to be given jobs? Why can’t we see more opportunity for Aboriginal people to create their own jobs? Maybe there are not hundreds of budding Aboriginal entrepreneurs in Cape York, but there may be a few. Why does the Queensland government’s wild rivers legislation prevent them from using their own land for economic purposes? And why won’t this Prime Minister and this government give time in this parliament to debate and vote upon my private member’s bill to overturn the Queensland wild rivers legislation in respect of Cape York and give Aboriginal people real land rights, give Aboriginal people the right to use their land as an economic asset and not just as a spiritual asset?

It is very easy to stand up in this parliament and to make worthy statements about our intentions and about all the fine government programs that we have put in place, but here is a very practical way of empowering Aboriginal people which I offer to the Prime Minister: overturn the Wild Rivers Act. Stop the impact of this grubby deal between the Greens in Brisbane and the Queensland government on the real future of the Aboriginal people of Cape York.

If you are not prepared to do this, Prime Minister, aren’t we guilty of just empty symbolism and words without action? Isn’t that precisely the problem that we have had for so many generations in this country—words without action? Let that not be pronounced against this generation as we are so happy to pronounce it against others.

I should not be too harsh on the Prime Minister because I do not for a second doubt his sincerity and I do not for a second doubt his commitment. I suppose what I doubt is his imagination and his real courage to take on vested interests in this area. We all know that it is very important to improve school attendance rates. Yes, it is a disgrace that even on the official figures—which are doctored—attendance at remote schools in the Northern Territory is but 60 per cent. But what more is the Prime Minister proposing to do about this? His speech was silent on this vital matter. We all know that there is massive absenteeism from CDEP, as it used to be, or Work for the Dole, as it is becoming in remote areas. What is the Prime Minister proposing to do about that? His statement on this important issue was similarly silent. We will not close the health gap, and we will not close the housing gap, unless we close the education gap and the employment gap. That is the great challenge of our time. That is the challenge that this parliament faces along with the wider Australian community.

Finally, may I say that it is good that the Prime Minister has made a commitment to speak every year on progress towards closing the gap, even if we have not been able to have these statements on the first day of the parliament as the Prime Minister promised. But it is good that every year there is going to be an Indigenous version of the American State of the Union address. That is a good thing; that is progress. I congratulate the Prime Minister for that, because this is an important task and it is worthy of occupying the attention of this parliament. It is a most worthy task for this parliament. But let us be under no illusion about the magnitude of the job upon which we are embarked and let there be less self-righteousness and more humanity as we move forward to address the great task before us.

See this speech in context