Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a representative of all of the Torres Strait and a considerable number of remote Indigenous communities throughout Cape York, I've developed an understanding of the issues that these communities face over my many years of service in the electorate of Leichhardt. When we talk about Indigenous disadvantage, we cannot equate the circumstances in remote Indigenous communities with those in metropolitan areas or larger regional towns. They are two very entirely different realities. The variety of choices and supports available to Indigenous Australians is not insignificant, but the supports are simply not found in the remote locations. There are choices that can be made in the metropolitan areas in schooling, universities, health, housing and jobs. There's no shortage of funding for Indigenous people to make these choices. Tick the box on the application and funding is available.

The real challenge is being able to get people engaged and extending the support into our remote areas. The challenge there is finding a way of making sure that Indigenous Australians in these metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns actually take the opportunities that are there.

There are great examples of Indigenous Australians who are engaged and are doing wonderful things. We've got successful examples of doctors, lawyers, teachers, leaders across industries and even politicians. There are even some you might not expect, like Daniel Joinbee from Yarrabah, who runs Gunggandji Aerospace, which is the only 100 per cent Indigenous owned aerospace consultancy; and Sharon Bonython-Ericson of Illuminate FNQ, which is driving opportunities in STEM for kids and helping grow the capacity of regional Indigenous and non-Indigenous kids to quite literally reach for the stars and to follow in the footsteps of people like Daniel Joinbee.

Another fine example is Tania Major from Kowanyama. She is a very proud Koko Bera woman. She went to university. She's a criminologist. She's done some fabulous work engaging her community through softball. While she's no longer living there, she's very committed to that community. She was also Young Australian of the Year.

The point is that there's no shortage of capable Indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, when you make your way out into the very remote communities across Cape York, across the country and throughout other areas of Australia, the story is quite different. These choices and supports are not available and many of the opportunities that do exist are only for government-driven Community Development Program work. It's quite sad to see so many young people aspiring to be just CDP workers.

Those who wish to remain in their communities are faced with limited options. They can be a ranger, an Indigenous health worker or a teachers aid. They are the main opportunities, but there are other roles that have relatively limited upward momentum within their respective remote communities.

It might be of interest to members of this House to know that, unlike in metropolitan, outer metropolitan and regional towns, should a young person in these remote communities want to go out and make something of themselves, aspiring for a better life, but wish to remain in their community, they don't have the option of even having their own housing. They must stay in their family home because that is all that is built—family homes. Whereas, if they were employed somewhere else and then applied for a job in that remote community, they would be afforded a house by the department. So they would get a house if they flew in, but if they stay there they're not entitled to one. What a disincentive.

For instance, a young person working irregular hours in, say, the health sector in the community is surrounded by their family—from infants to toddlers right through to grandparents—all living under the same roof. It's really not an insignificant issue. It's complex. It just reinforces further elements of disadvantage. You can't have your own space as a mature-aged young person in a community. You can't have your own place to learn to be house proud. You're trying to get ahead, but the needs and priorities of your entire family across generations can make it exceptionally difficult. And we expect this to be functional.

These young people can't move into their own place. Anywhere else it's a rite of passage. This simple illustration says to me that they in fact don't have the choices and the supports. When we are talking about disadvantage in these areas, this is where we need to focus to improve the quality of life and to get better engagement and better choices.

It seems that all we ever do is go around in circles. We saw what happened with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. ATSIC started with effectively the same aspirations being promoted for the Voice. Sadly, it was another abject failure. It was particularly a failure again in these remote communities. A privileged few did very well out of it, but the majority of those in remote communities have continued to largely suffer and go without.

We've had slogans like 'closing the gap'. Have a look at the continual failures. Prime ministers from both sides have had to stand up year after year in this place and admit failure after failure. The metrics have stalled and the gap remains, if not grows. To me, the Voice is another slogan. We simply must do better. And there is no detail. It's all: 'Trust us. We'll change the Constitution and we'll fix all the problems.' Quite frankly, judging on the history, I don't trust that rhetoric. The reality is: we'd be far better if we were to legislate now so that we could then make the necessary changes until we got Indigenous policy in this country working for Indigenous Australians.

I have no argument that Indigenous voices need to be heard. It's important that the 11 Indigenous voices that we have here in this parliament are heard. But it's equally important that those on the ground who are living in remote communities, facing the daily reality of failed Indigenous policy, have their voices heard too. I agreed with the Minister for Indigenous Australians when she said earlier this week that we need to deliver 'structural change that empowers Indigenous communities' and that we should be 'getting better advice so that we get better policies and better outcomes'. That's an absolute no-brainer. But I think we have to do this by listening to regional and remote voices. A bottom-up approach is needed. It's obvious to me that a bureaucratic approach is not going to resolve these ongoing challenges.

It is the popularly elected leaders in our respective communities that have demonstrated their own successes that need to be given the chance to raise their voices; otherwise, we'll just get more of the same. A great example the House might be interested in is the remote community in my electorate of Old Mapoon, where Aileen Addo and her council, and their predecessors, have done amazingly well. We're talking about a remote community council consisting of four women and one man. Old Mapoon started like any other remote community, where governments brought together families from around the region, for convenience of management and supplying converts to the church. Sure, at the time, it was well-meaning. However, the community was betrayed in 1963 when, in the interests of further mining operations, the church, the government and the mining companies colluded and declared the mission to be unhealthy. They rounded up the entire community and forcefully relocated them to New Mapoon on the tip of Cape York. But, to add insult to injury, as the families were being barged out of the bay, they had to watch their homes being torched—a very sad indictment of the history of our region. Interestingly enough, half of the community chose to stay at the new site, at New Mapoon, and, to this day, continue to face many of the challenges we see in remote communities. The other half spread themselves around Australia and then, in 1984, they chose to come back home and decided to rebuild. And haven't they done a fantastic job. They brought many skills, acquired during their time of banishment.

Another community leader worthy of mention is the long-serving mayor of the Lockhart River community, Wayne Butcher. It's certainly a community not without challenges, but the progress that has been made by Wayne and his team is worthy of recognition. Again, like Aileen Addo's, Wayne's voice is one that should be heard.

These are wonderful examples of communities that have been successful, where, in stark contrast, other communities in Cape York continue to suffer from different levels of dysfunction. And I say this to underscore the fact that the community leadership has a significant role to play.

Since the introduction of Indigenous policy in this country, there has always been a select group of self-appointed Indigenous leaders that are predominantly metropolitan academics. They have long provided guidance to policymakers, and it appears that this trend will continue to prevail under the guise of the Voice. And we've seen where that has got us today.

Many people on both sides of the parliament have long hailed the work of Noel Pearson in advancing Indigenous policy. They've held him up as a messiah—like a figurehead for Indigenous Australians. He is acknowledged as one of the architects of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to the Parliament that we're debating here today. There is no doubt that Noel has significant influence over Indigenous affairs, but I, like many others in Cape York who have seen the reality of his influence, have long been critical of governments and bureaucrats that only care to listen for his voice. Over decades, Noel Pearson and his organisations and policy initiatives have exerted growing influence over governments of all persuasions. They've received hundreds of millions of dollars over many decades for his pet projects. And for what? Many of these remote communities that Noel has used as policy experiments remain dysfunctional, whether it's Cape York welfare reform, Cape York Employment, Good to Great Schools or a range of other concessions—the list of Noel's entities and programs just goes on and on.

With great difficulty, I've been able to ascertain that since 2005 Noel has accumulated something like $550 million of Australian taxpayers' money—and that's only what I've been able to find—and subsidies for his entities and policy initiatives. The vast majority of these have been in remote communities in Cape York. Noel comes up with the policy ideas, the government give him the money, he runs the program, and God help anybody who stands in his way. It's evident to me that these funds are a lot more than that and go back further than 2005.

I ask the question: is there value for money? In my view, it's always been a ruse. I challenge anyone to come up and have a look at what influence he's actually achieved. The communities in Cape York who have, effectively, banned Noel—like Mapoon—are doing exceptionally well. Those who've let Noel's influence into their communities remain dysfunctional, and I'm sure the House is aware of the well-known example of Aurukun in Cape York.

Noel has been in the government's payroll for decades, advising and influencing Indigenous policy, and I say to government: do we really need the architect of so many policy failures involved in producing another one? While he identifies himself as a Cape York Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson has never stood for an election. He certainly wants to lead—and should face the community. Let's see where he goes, then, on polling day.

When it comes to a voice, many are calling for respect and restraint. When regarding the views of others, a level of dignity is required, particularly in these sensitive debates where such a diverse range of views is involved. I can tell you now, Noel, that you won't win the hearts and minds of others by penning pieces like the one you did in the Australian on 20 May, writing off baby boomers as racist just because they don't subscribe to your world view:

The boomer readership of this paper is of course antipathetic to recognition. They are mostly obscurant and borderline casual racists in their views.

As a baby boomer myself, I find these comments deeply offensive, a cheap, grubby attack on the genuine criticism relating to your brainchild.

It's classic Noel Pearson behaviour—shout down anybody who disagrees with you and call them a racist. It really typifies the individual. That's not how you start bringing people along on a journey towards improving Indigenous disadvantage and securing constitutional recognition.

I am not opposed to the Voice per se, but it should be legislated in the parliament. We have no substantive detail, and it's a very significant thing to change the Constitution. We can't expect Australians to vote on a feeling or a guess. The old line, 'Trust us, vote yes and we'll figure out the details later,' is simply not going to fly. It's an extraordinary proposition and I completely understand why many Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are having serious reservations.

Recognition is absolutely critical. We need to be taking recognition out of this debate and installing it in the Constitution immediately. What I'm urging us to do here is to get the Voice legislated and to work it through until it's the best it can be—when we start seeing improvements happening. Then we can start saying we're successful in this very important area of policy.

See this speech in context