Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to make some fairly brief comments on Indigenous Australians at work: successful initiatives in Indigenous employment, a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. In so doing, I am obviously going to be referring to the fact that Labor members of the committee put in a dissenting report. I want to talk to that point, but I preface those comments by saying very clearly that, in the 11½ years that I have been in this parliament, I have become even more convinced of the value of committee work in the parliament. I am a very strong supporter of the parliamentary committee process. I believe, should I be so bold as to say this, that in fact some of the best work in this parliament can and does occur in those parliamentary committees.

This report, which is the only piece of work done by this committee during this parliamentary term, is, sadly, disappointing. It could have been, and should have been, a major work on Indigenous issues, with particular reference to employment and all of the associated subjects that inevitably are discussed when you talk about Indigenous employment. I find with Indigenous issues generally that it is very difficult to talk about one just policy area because they all become interrelated.

I refer to the minority report, which is at the back of the committee’s report, and to where we quite openly say that it was a bit of a precedent in committee reporting that Labor members of the ATSIA committee were not prepared to endorse the majority report of this inquiry. We were dissenting not because of any strong fundamental disagreement with the few recommendations the report proposed—although we do not necessarily agree with all of them—but because of the report’s failure in our view to come to grips with the gravity of the problem or to suggest policy settings and programs which would have any real prospect of increasing employment.

The deputy chair of the committee, my colleague Dr Carmen Lawrence, has I think already spoken in passing on this in the House at the tabling of the report. She explained very clearly that we tried to have the chairman’s draft of the report as it was initially presented to the committee modified to some degree. We were at first hopeful that that could happen, but sadly that was not the case. The chairman’s draft with some minor alterations, generally speaking, became the report of the committee. Hence the position that we four members of this committee have taken with this dissenting report. It was very difficult for me and my colleagues to make this decision because we have a very strong view—and I do personally—about the potential of work of committees. We made some constructive suggestions along the lines of trying to get some further consideration into the draft report and sadly failed.

We suggested in reporting the results of our inquiry that we should try to get from the evidence the understanding of what economic development settings seem to be successful in generating new opportunities for Indigenous people, what maintains the employment for those already in the workforce, what improves the labour market readiness and what helps overcome the obvious obstacles to Indigenous people when they face attempting to get employment. In particular, we really wanted to see those questions posed but also tested and tested strongly so that we could recognise not only where the successes lay but how we could help guarantee the growth of those successes, and what actually works and does not work.

Some of the things that we were hoping we could test—that we think would be sensible to test—in ascertaining the effectiveness of certain things would be, for instance, ensuring that Indigenous people are involved in the planning and implementation of economic development and employment programs which affect them, or providing financial incentives to employers or including Indigenous employment obligations in government contracts and agreements with the private sector. There is a whole list of possible topics on page 211 that the committee and we have put up, but we would have liked to have seen these things tested and to show where they work and where they do not work, why they do or do not work and where the emphasis should be in the future—for example, whether or not supplementing CDEP programs to provide services in education, health, construction, maintenance and so on works.

I am sorry that that was not the case. I do not wish to be overly critical of the chair or the other members of the committee; it is just that we had different views on how this should and could, in our view, have been taken forward. I think we have to also remember that this inquiry and then this report, at the time that it was published, had a background of the Northern Territory intervention action, where there was a great deal of concentration nationally within the media, politically and in the community on Indigenous issues around the country generally. I just think that maybe we had a great opportunity that we did not take complete and full advantage of with this report.

A great number of individuals came and gave evidence. I want to urge anyone who is interested in these vital issues affecting our Indigenous communities, when they look at this report, to carefully consider the report but also our dissenting report and understand why we have taken the position that we have. It is important that people look at this in context and see where we thought that a little bit better could have been done in relation to the issue.

I want to thank those people who did come forward as individuals—Indigenous people, people in community organisations. Every time I am lucky enough to be involved in work in this parliament which is dealing with Indigenous people I am overwhelmed by their readiness to come forward and talk about their lives, issues and problems—to share it—all with a view to trying to assist us and them to work together to come up with good solutions that we can work on in partnership with them. I am always impressed by their readiness, their sincerity and their wish to participate—given that I am sure this part of our community has been inquired into so many times that they would have every right to wonder why we are walking through their door again. They never stop willingly wanting to participate. I pay regard to all of those individuals and organisations, whether they gave witness and/or whether they made submissions to the inquiry.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the committee. It is always interesting and gratifying, in my opinion, to travel with parliamentary colleagues from whichever part of the House on committee inquiries. I always enjoy it immensely because you really get to know each other and understand each other’s viewpoints. I want to thank all of my colleagues for that. I want to pay regard also to the committee secretariat particularly, in this instance, for their forbearance and for their assistance through this process—a slightly difficult process towards the end. I thank them. As always, we are so well served in this place by the professionalism and sheer hard work of the people who find themselves attached to our parliamentary committees, so I want to thank them as well.

As we are so near an election, who knows what will happen to this report, who knows what will happen to the recommendations, who knows what will happen to the thoughts that we have outlined in our dissenting report; but I would like to think that in the future, no matter where it all ends up, any future programs and incentives and considerations which have an impact on the employment opportunities for our Indigenous communities look at this work and consider all of the aspects as put forward at both ends of this report—that they may even have the time to consider the information in some of the submissions and some of the evidence in the Hansard. In both cases I think they will find a font of information and advice that would be very useful.

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

I was listed to speak in this debate on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report entitled Indigenous Australians at work: successful initiatives in Indigenous employment following the honourable member for Grey but, given the fact that I had to chair another House of Representatives standing committee report consideration, I was not able to do that. So I just want to thank my colleague Mr Wakelin for deferring to me to allow me to say just a few words in support of the report and his chairmanship of the committee during the period of this parliament.

At the outset, I want to mention to the House what a privilege it has been to serve on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Grey. I have served, as other members have, on very many parliamentary committees, but I have never come across such an easygoing, accommodating and reasonable chairman as the honourable member for Grey. I suspect that even those honourable members who signed a minority report would agree that Mr Wakelin is an excellent and very accommodating chairman. He wants everyone to have his or her say and he wants the widest possible range of views and thoughts so that the committee, in its deliberations, is able to bring forward the most appropriate report.

I do have to place on record that I was sorry that the four Labor members found it necessary to lodge a minority report. I suppose I am pleased it is called a minority report and not a dissenting report in one sense, because all of us, regardless of where we sit in the House, are seriously concerned about Indigenous disadvantage—and that is one of the reasons why, I suspect, each of us comes from our life’s experience to be part of this particular committee. Having said that I regret the fact that there is a minority report, I do respect the right of the honourable members to sign up to a minority report so that they feel that their views are adequately expressed. I do not, however, support the minority report; I support the majority report, which was carried by a majority of the committee.

The honourable member for Canberra made a very valid point when she said that Indigenous Australians are probably being more reported on and there have been more inquiries into Indigenous disadvantage than probably any other area of government or social activity in Australia. When I was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, the member for Grey and, I think, the member for Canberra were part of an inquiry we had into Indigenous health.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seven years ago.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So was I.

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

I find it appalling that there is still this difference in life expectancy for Indigenous Australians—

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Still.

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

that there is a 20-year difference between the life expectancies—

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing has happened since we did that.

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

There has historically been a 20-year gap—

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deputy chair was on the committee too. It is still the same.

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

I thank the honourable member for her interjection, but what I am trying to say is that I think it is inappropriate in 2007 that the life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is clearly less than it is for non-Indigenous Australians.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is inappropriate and unacceptable.

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

It is unacceptable and inappropriate, and it is a situation that ought not be allowed to continue. It is one of those issues that unite the parliament. Whatever we can do to improve Indigenous health outcomes is very important—and I am very proud to be part of this government, which has done a lot in the area of practical reconciliation. But of course the job is never finished. There is always more to be done, and we ought to focus on Indigenous needs with a view to making sure that Indigenous Australians have the same life opportunities and health outcomes that other Australians do.

Having that said, this is a report—as no doubt you are likely to very shortly remind me, Mr Deputy Speaker—on Indigenous Australians at work. The effort of the committee was to look at what was happening well, look at what was happening not quite so well and bring forward recommendations which would encourage an expansion of positive outcomes and try to do away with those less than positive outcomes.

I support all of the recommendations of the committee. I do hope that the government of the day considers this report, Indigenous Australians at work, closely and carefully. I am convinced that, regardless of the result of the election, the government of the day will certainly do that and we will, in the fullness of time, see a response to this report.

I also would like to mention how sorry I am that the member for Grey is choosing to leave the parliament voluntarily at this next election. I have known the honourable member for Grey since about 1993, when we were both elected. In fact, we sat next to each other in opposition. On occasions I originally got his name wrong. I think I referred to the honourable member for Grey by the name of his predecessor, Mr Lloyd O’Neil. Having said all that, the present member for Grey has been a wonderful colleague. He has been an excellent representative for the people of Grey. Rural South Australia is losing a keen advocate and, I have to say, Indigenous Australians are also losing a keen advocate. The report is the honourable member’s valedictory report in a sense, but I wish him every success in the future. I commend him on his chairmanship and on what this report actually contains. I believe that this report, if accepted by the government, will make a real difference. I commend the report to the House.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make some further remarks without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

It has been a pleasure to be part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs over a couple of parliaments now and to be its chairman. The report Indigenous Australians at work: successful initiatives in Indigenous employment endeavoured to find something positive that was happening in Indigenous affairs, to report on it and see whether the parliament could benefit from that experience in the community. I thought today that, in the time allocated, rather than go through all the recommendations which the government is considering, I would simply bring out some of the positives. I will start with my own foreword to the report, where I said:

The Aboriginal face on the Australian $50 note is David Unaipon, author, inventor and sometimes thought of as “Australia’s Leonardo”. As a remarkable example of the capacity of Indigenous people, I am sure that there are many David Unaipons across Australia and I dedicate this foreword to his memory and the future creativity of every Indigenous Australian.

In discussing our request to the Minister of the need for a positive approach to Indigenous matters, employment was an area where progress could be demonstrated. At a time of strong economic performance at the national level and with workforce shortages a growing reality, the opportunities for further development of Indigenous employment appeared to be significant.

Over the past two years we were fortunate to share the views and better understand the outcomes for many individuals, companies and the wider community in this vital human activity.

The central role of work and the workplace in most Australian’s lives is something that we perhaps take for granted – but the lessons of the past two years remind all of us that the variation in workforce participation by Indigenous people is very much a result of a complex set of factors which some achieve with significant success and others have a more limited result.

The above is very much a two way street with some employers leading the way and with many employees open to opportunities and both able to achieve great results.

The recurring theme of many people who presented before the Committee was the overwhelming impact of welfare policies as a deterrent to sustainable employment. The need for Government policies to strike a better balance between the incentives for work and the incentives to be distracted by welfare is vital.

I will just take some quotes from the report which say it much better than I can:

Welfare dependency is an enemy to Indigenous advancement.

That was from Mr Jack Pearson in his submission, No. 102, a very clear view, and it was a recurring theme: welfare dependency is an enemy to Indigenous advancement. I go to the minerals industry have a look at its contribution. I hope it will become clear why I have chosen this quote:

In the minerals industry—

this is from the text of the report—

60 per cent of their operations have neighbouring Indigenous communities. The mining industry has a vested interest in Indigenous land and communities; many resources are located on Indigenous land interests and companies need workers.

Not only does the mining industry have a very significant interest in accessing the land but it is the largest employer of Indigenous people in Australia. The minerals industry and its role, its memoranda of understanding and its general approach have been quite remarkable in its opportunities. I will just give one example from the report:

The Committee views Rio Tinto’s Argyle Diamond Mine’s Indigenous Employment Strategy as a ‘best practice model’. The company focuses on recruiting locally, and has set high targets for Indigenous employment and retention. Since 2000 Aboriginal employment has gone from less than five per cent to 23 per cent. Targets have been reset and it is hoped that by 2010, 40 per cent of the workforce will be Aboriginal. Argyle attributes its success to two strategies:

• A four day hiring and selection process which is culturally appropriate but still provides a robust assessment of candidates’ employability; and
• Training programs to skill-up Indigenous people, so that they can assist with the development of their communities. In 2003 Argyle entered into a contract with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations ... to employ 150 trainees, which has resulted in 73 apprentices and trainees. Additionally, the mine’s procurement contracts require contractors to employ local Indigenous people.

I go now to the Indigenous Land Corporation, another successful employer. The ILC’s primary land management initiative is the Indigenous Pastoral Program. The IPP, as it is called, was established in 2003 with the signing of a MOU through the Northern Territory government, the ILC and the Northern Land and Central Land councils. The ILC submitted that at this time the organisation was the 19th largest cattle producer in Australia, running approximately 38,000 head of cattle. The ILC had some interesting things to say about the CDEP and the impediments to sustainable work practices.

I will also just mention here Australia Post. Australia Post have considerable success in the Indigenous employment area. Of Australia Post’s workforce, 1.7 per cent are Indigenous across all business streams and—this next point is quite important—27 per cent of full-time employees are above base grade level. That is, there is a spread throughout their organisation.

Some may know of Tjapukai, a very large tourism project and company in Cairns. Ernest Brimm, one of their senior people there in Cairns, said:

… the new spirit of freedom that is hopefully growing in the Aboriginal community at large [is] freedom from dependence on government handouts; freedom from a century of oppression; freedom from the cycle of poverty. We are proud of what we have accomplished.

And so they should be. Daniel Tucker of Carey Mining in Western Australia makes an interesting comment about reconciliation, which was also to be considered as part of our report. Also, I quote Mr John Corboy, a businessman:

Personally, I am not enormously into reconciliation; I am enormously into affirmative action. I think, beyond any doubt, there is an undeniable case that the Aboriginal members of our community do need to have the playing field levelled.

Simply put, in terms of the mining percentages, just to remind us, at Comalco—another one of the Rio stable—17.5 per cent of the workforce is Indigenous, with a target of 35 per cent by 2010 to be Indigenous; Comalco in Gladstone, in Queensland, 6.5 per cent; Pilbara Iron, 3.8 per cent of the workforce, with a target of 15 per cent—and I could go on to many others. I mentioned Argyle, BHP Billiton, Groote Eylandt, the National Tertiary Education Union et cetera and Tangentyere in Alice Springs.

In the time available, I wish to acknowledge a great man. Dr Dennis Foley has run a 10-year study—I think it is in excess of 10 years—of Indigenous entrepreneurship and small business progress for the Indigenous community. He has such commitment to this. To me, it is quite remarkable that a man would regard it as so important to the progress of Indigenous people that he would just dedicate so much time to it. He simply makes this point about the relationship of entrepreneurship, small business, to Indigenous progress:

It enables a certain part of Aboriginal Australia to move forward and be in control of what they are doing. They become a part of a wider society. They still maintain their Indigenousness. They do not lose their Aboriginality—that is for sure. They can still control it, but it is far easier to control your cultural beliefs when you have control of your financial resources. When you do not have control of your financial resources, you do not really have control of your life.

I now want to move on to Warren Mundine, who is an inspiration to me. I will give you a quote from Warren’s perspective. He said:

Profit is not a bad word—it has been in Aboriginal communities for many years in regards to enterprises. We have to sell that as a good word.

He deliberately used the word ‘shareholders’. He also makes the point:

I am an optimist and we are living in exciting times. The leadership is changing: we have a younger, more articulate, more educated leadership coming forward.

It is with some pleasure that I acknowledge this report. It is a very brief snapshot of those who participated in it.

Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned.