Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question without notice is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would be aware that the life expectancy of original Australians is 17 years less than other Australians’. In spite of the Prime Minister’s genuine and generous saying sorry, is he aware that last year the front page of the Australian reported that there are three times more original Australian children stolen in New South Wales now than in the stolen generation era? Queensland’s and the Northern Territory’s are double this rate. Is the Prime Minister further aware that 30 per cent of the Australian continent is Aboriginal lands, yet upon it an original Australian cannot own even half an acre, since the law does not provide for any private ownership title whatsoever? This is in spite of promises by Queensland since 1991, for example. Additionally, land that came as a result of non-alienated reserved areas, purchases and the Mabo decision is now having most of its property rights stripped away through an ever-increasing dispossession by World Heritage, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, GBRMPA, national parks and, now, runaway conservation zones and wild river proposals. First Australians’ rights to earn a living from their lands and seas, or even get food, are now being taken away. In light of this panorama of lethal paternalism, could the Prime Minister consider designating in his department a senior official who could have the overarching power to deal with these cross-ministry issues? Finally, is the Prime Minister aware that the legal team that won Mabo is now being pulled together to fight against the wild rivers and other declarations? Would he agree that original Australians should not again have to go to the High Court to protect rights which the rest of us take for granted?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. I do not think anyone in this House would dispute the passion which the member for Kennedy has in representing the interests of Indigenous Australians. I have heard him speak on this many times before. I have heard him speak on this before in jurisdictions other that than the Commonwealth parliament. So no-one questions his motivations in bringing forward questions to this place on the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, including those whom he represents in the electorate of Kennedy.

The first part of the honourable member’s question went to Indigenous life expectancy. He is absolutely right to point to the obscenity of the 17-year life gap which currently exists between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. As the honourable member will recall, that is one of the core elements of this government’s strategy entitled ‘Closing the Gap’—that is, that we cannot be serious in claiming that we are closing the gap or have closed it until we have made measurable progress in bringing that obscene difference down. Of course, the constituent building blocks of that, which are what happens with child health, infant mortality as well as educational opportunity, employment opportunity and physical safety and security within communities, are fundamental building blocks towards achieving a reduction in that gap as far as life expectancy is concerned.

We are also, as the honourable member would be familiar with, embracing a range of measures not just in the Northern Territory but also elsewhere in Australia in partnership with state and territory governments, many of which are quite controversial, in seeking to effect change in each of those measures. There are measures, for example, that we are engaged in in the Northern Territory which are highly controversial. There are also measures which we are completely supportive of by the government of Western Australia, which are in turn controversial. This government’s resolve in bringing about substantial, measurable change in the gap in life expectancy is anchored in our strategy of closing the gap.

The second point I would make to the honourable member’s question is this: I draw his attention to the agreement that we reached for the first time with the states and territories in Darwin in, I seem to recall, about July of this year. For the first time we have a national agreement between all governments—state, territory and Commonwealth—on closing the gap across all the fields of policy. This has been fundamental. As the honourable member would know, for so many years we have had state and federal governments running in reverse directions, conflicting directions, in producing integrated policies on housing, integrated policies on education, integrated policies on health and integrated policies on community security and community welfare. I would draw his attention carefully to the list of measurables which are attached to the intergovernmental agreement which was framed at the July COAG convened in Darwin.

The third point that the honourable member goes to in his question is of course the complex question of land entitlement. I do not seek to avoid the controversy which is also contained within that question. As the honourable member will know, there is a huge diversity of views across Indigenous Australia as to how the land title question is best handled for the future when it comes to individual Indigenous communities and across the nation. I am entirely familiar with the breadth of passions across that debate. This is not an easy one to fix. Of course, we are dealing with it in one small part in the statements which have been made by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs concerning certain housing infrastructure developments which we must undertake in the Northern Territory. They have involved quite controversial questions concerning the land tenure system.

The final part of the honourable member’s question goes to how we best coordinate within the federal government that which we are doing. I would draw to the honourable member’s attention a decision which was taken some time ago by the Australian government to appoint the first Australian government coordinator-general for the delivery of federal government services to Indigenous Australians. Mr Gleeson was appointed to that position some time ago. I would invite the honourable member to spend some time with the minister and with Mr Gleeson to familiarise himself with exactly what he is seeking to do at the Commonwealth level.

We have also encouraged our state counterparts to do the same so that we can speak with one voice in our dealings with Indigenous communities across the nation. The minister informs me that state and territory governments either have moved or are moving in a similar direction. We cannot allow, frankly, the federal-state divide to continue to undermine progress in bringing about a closing of the gap in reality, not just in name, because, as I said to this chamber at the time we delivered the apology to Indigenous Australians, our words will be as a sounding gong unless we achieve through our active strategies on the ground measurable changes in Indigenous communities which are provable in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and child mortality as well as maternal life expectancy and educational and employment outcomes for our Indigenous brothers and sisters.