Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (6):

(1)

Clause 4, page 3 (lines 11-17), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:

(1)

Subject to subsection (3), the provisions of this Act, and any acts done under or for the purposes of those provisions, are, for the purposes of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, special measures and are consistent with Part 2 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

(2)

Subject to subsection (3), the provisions of this Act, and any acts done under or for the purposes of those provisions, are not laws as described by subsection 10(3) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

(2)

Schedule 4, item 9, page 39 (after line 24), after paragraph (g) insert:

(ga)

in performing functions as an agent of the Commonwealth government or of the Northern Territory government on official business; or

(3)

Schedule 4, item 9, page 39 (after line 24), after paragraph (g) insert:

(gb)

in performing functions as a journalist in their professional capacity; or

(4)

Schedule 4, item 9, page 39 (after line 35), insert:

journalist means a member of a professional organisation recognised by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(5)

Schedule 4, item 12, page 41 (line 13) to page 53 (line 5), omit proposed sections 70B to 70F (inclusive).

(6)

Schedule 4, item 14, page 53 (after line 29), at the end of proposed section 74AA insert:

(2)

A land council may, by writing, request that the Minister revoke a permit issued to a person under subsection 70(2BB) where there are, in the opinion of the council, reasonable grounds to believe that the person is of bad character.

Amendment (1) is the same as the amendment that we moved to the other two bills that would clarify that the measures in the bill are special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act, so I will not repeat the remarks that I made earlier. Amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5) relate to the permit system. Amendment (5) opposes the government’s removal of the permit system on roads and common areas in towns. We believe that this removal of the permit system by the government will reduce the safety of children in these communities by allowing greater access for sly groggers, drug runners and paedophiles. Labor has proposed a test for dealing with this legislation: it would get our support if it improved the security and safety of children in a practical way. It is our view that in their current form the government’s proposed changes to the permit system do not satisfy that test.

We are supported in this view by the Northern Territory’s Police Association. Vince Kelly has made it very clear that in his view the permit system gives both the police and the local communities the ability to exclude certain people from the community. He goes on to say that these are people who are possibly offenders in relation to sexual and physical abuse of Aboriginal women and children. As he says, more importantly, they are possibly offenders in terms of running grog and drugs into these communities. It is the Police Association President’s view that the permit system can be used and has been used to prevent access by sly groggers and paedophiles. It is for that reason that we are moving this amendment. We think that the permit system helps to protect children and that the government’s move will make it less safe for children.

Nevertheless, we recognise the need to allow greater access for certain types of people. Amendments (2), (3) and (4) expand the categories of permit exemptions across Aboriginal land for people engaged as agents of the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government to enable them to access these communities. This will certainly help the government in its service delivery through this intervention. Our amendments also provide for an exemption for journalists working in their professional capacity. We think that that is important for open public transparency. We believe that these changes will assist in the delivery of important services and most importantly in ensuring the safety of women and children in Aboriginal communities without opening them up to the risk of unfettered access by sly groggers or paedophiles.

In the bill, the government proposes to give the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs the power to issue permits, which we do not oppose. The section also limits the revoking of permits to the entity which issued the permit. What we are trying to do with amendment (6) is to give the land councils the right to ask the minister to revoke a permit if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person to whom he has issued a permit is of bad character. It would enable the minister to take advice from the land councils if they have information that should lead to the revocation of a permit.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will talk to the amendment dealing with permits and to schedule 2 of the amendment. This amendment is actually superfluous. It is already covered by existing legislation and is in fact covered under section 72AA relating to a person who is in the service or employment of the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory or an authority—that is a definition of a person who is an officer, and they are covered.

Amendment (3) would mean that journalists would in fact be able to range over the 48 per cent of the Northern Territory that is Aboriginal land rather than just communities. This would be an issue in terms of privacy and sacred sites, the very views that our exclusion of removing the permit system for 99.8 per cent of the Territory would seek to respect. For that reason we oppose that.

Amendment (4) relates to subsection (3). On (5), this would actually be returned to the permit system or to one of the closed communities. To take issue with Vince Kelly: is he seriously telling anyone that the rivers of grog, the pornography, the drug running and the sexual abuse has not occurred with the permit system now? It has not helped whatsoever. But I would ask him to have a look at Daly River, where there is no permit system and which is a far cleaner, healthier, more secure community. So the proof is in the pudding. I say to him and to you that there is no substitute for police. That is our commitment: to give people genuine policing, not hide behind a permit system that has simply failed communities.

Finally, in relation to the powers of the minister, why is it that you are requesting only that the minister issue a permit to a person or revoke a permit to someone who may be of bad character?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just let me clarify what is in the bill, in case we are at cross-purposes. The ability to issue permits includes the ability to revoke permits. We reject the amendments as they are placed.

Question put:

That the amendments (Ms Macklin’s) be agreed to.