Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I have never heard a whip use that excuse for not speaking at the appropriate point in the debate, but we hear new things all the time from this government, which is keen to ride roughshod over the practices in this chamber whenever it suits them.

I commend Senator Stephens for her contribution and would respectfully adopt many of the things she has put on the record as a very fair reflection of matters that ought to be put in this debate. We are seeing Indigenous communities being demonised on a regular basis in the media by and with the assistance of this government. I am not surprised. As Labor’s former Indigenous affairs spokesman, I have seen this coming, particularly since this government was able to obtain a majority of senators in this chamber. The unspoken desire of many in the government to turn the clock back in relation to the representation of Indigenous Australians in many respects is typified in this legislation.

I also reflect on the fact that this is a government that when it suits it says that communities who are affected by change ought to have a say in those matters. We saw it quite recently with the plebiscite which was conducted in the Toowoomba community on proposals in relation to their water supply. They are not an Indigenous community, of course. Clearly, according to this government, different rules apply to them than apply to Indigenous communities. It was this government that imposed the obligation on the Toowoomba council to hold the plebiscite on a proposal for funding for water recycling. That has received ample coverage in the media, and I do not need to canvass the nature of that proposal.

That was not the first occasion on which this government interposed in proposals put forward within a community for change. I recall some of the fishing communities in the prawn industry being the subject of a plebiscite requested by coalition senators which ultimately saw the removal of the industry development levy—much to the detriment of the industry—because there was some opposition to the existence of that levy. It was this government that imposed on that industry the obligation to hold a plebiscite. In relation to the establishment of other mechanisms which are given effect by this parliament in the farming industry, such as industry levies and other important industry measures, this government imposes—and we do not object to a democratic indication of an industry’s will—an obligation to conduct a plebiscite to ascertain that there is proper support for the proposal within the industry.

That is not happening now—not for this community. This is an area, particularly in relation to the land councils, in which the government is content to do what its secret discussions are telling it it must do to satisfy its constituency. It is imposing on the Northern Territory land councils and the Indigenous communities within them rules that suit this government in relation to their land. Of course, land rights in this country have had quite a chequered and, in many respects, shameful past over many years.

There had been up until this point quite a degree of bipartisan support for the model of representation through land councils to ensure that the Indigenous communities who had a traditional connection with the land would have a proper say in matters, and it was to ensure that development would be in accordance with the wishes of the traditional owners of land that this legislation which is now in place and is subject to the proposed amendments came into existence. There was a degree of bipartisanship. That issue has been the subject of review and discussion over a period of time.

Now this government has a majority in its own right in this chamber and there is no proposal for extensive consultation with those communities. There is no proposal for a plebiscite within the traditional ownership groups which will be affected by this legislation as to whether they are prepared to accept it on the basis that there is some benefit for them. No, this government will impose its will on these communities. This government will be saying to the land councils: ‘If you don’t do what we want, we will make sure that we get our way. We have control over you in terms of funding. If you don’t do what we want, you can kiss goodbye to the funding.’ This government is saying in relation to setting up new land councils: ‘It doesn’t matter that traditional owners have a view. Any Indigenous Australian who lives in the area proposed will then have a vote in a plebiscite—not just the traditional owners.’

In some of these communities live traditional owners and Indigenous Australians from other parts of the country who have moved there. This legislation will effectively provide the potential for the dispossession of traditional owners by other Indigenous communities through a land council established under a plebiscite, conducted by the Electoral Commission, of any Indigenous Australian who lives in the area proposed. So the government is saying to the traditional owners of land affected: ‘Your rights will be gone. Unless you somehow can exclude those people from the area proposed, you can become the minority.’

I interpose that people talk about concerns about the potential for violence. I would have thought that that would be one of the ways in which this legislation could actually provoke it. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. I know that most Indigenous Australians are gentle people and most Indigenous Australians seek to work well within their communities. But, unfortunately, just as in the white community, a minority of people give some Indigenous communities a bad name and blacken their reputation because they choose to act violently and unlawfully. There are many causes of that, and I do not propose to touch upon them now.

Labor is saying let us proceed slowly. This government has a majority in the Senate and it is not as if it has a time requirement to pass this legislation now without the consultation we propose. It is not as if in a month, three months or six months the position within this chamber will change. It is not as if it does not have the resources to conduct the consultation that Labor is proposing. It is not as if the government has a history of doing otherwise with other communities. It is simply a matter of choice for this government as to what it wants to do now. Why impose on these communities without that consultation and, indeed, without the opportunity to have a proper say in it—and not a farcical, one-day Senate inquiry and not an inquiry which removes from those people the opportunity to have any say at all, let alone to participate in a plebiscite?

Let us have a proper consultation. Let us take this matter to the communities who will be affected by the legislation. Let us not deal with them in the way that other communities have been dealt with where their basic human rights, their rights to the services that the overwhelming majority of Australians receive, can be subject to some community performance standard set by this government. Let us have a proper consultation where the people who are affected by this legislation can have a say.

Why is the government so keen to push this matter through now? That is a question I have not heard an answer to. This government has in many respects in relation to other legislation talked about the need to preserve the principles that operate in many areas in the community. Constitutionally, for example, the government has been talking about preserving our connection with the British monarchy as a cornerstone of our democracy, and that is a matter that the community will have a chance to have a say on. This is a government which has opposed rights for people who have different beliefs from it in relation to families and relationships, but there is a democratic process through here, through the community and also right through state parliaments that can deal with some of those rights—but not here. What we have here is a group of Australians with special rights that have been enshrined in legislation with the support of both sides of politics over many years. Now this government wants to change it, and it wants to change it without the right of those people to have a proper say.

I wonder how the government can say that this bill will improve access to health care, education, employment and housing for Indigenous communities. Indeed, it may be possible that they can demonstrate those facts. They have not so far and they have not to the communities affected but, if their case is as strong as they say it is, why are they not prepared to test it with those who are affected by the legislation? Why can’t they bring the communities with the government on this legislation rather than simply ramming it down their throats?

The Labor Party are committed to reforms that will provide opportunities for Aboriginal people to gain a maximum benefit from their land. In that context we could consider positively any reforms that have clearly demonstrated that they will enable this to happen. If the government were confident that they can demonstrate that then they would not be rushing this legislation through today. They would have gone through a much more extensive consultation, not just through the Senate committee but with the communities involved.

Aboriginal communities can of course maximise economic gains within their communities without the changes proposed in this legislation. It is happening now in communities across the Northern Territory in partnership with mining interests and others. It has been negotiated under the current legislation. It leads to benefits for those communities through the payment of royalties. Those communities, through their land councils, have had some fine ideas about how they could enshrine the benefits for their communities in the long term. It shows a foresight by those land councils that should be encouraged.

The benefits that might be gained from the proposals that the government talks about are counterbalanced by the negatives that might be given effect. I can envisage circumstances where, in a particular area, it is in the interests of a development proposal to seek to divide a community between traditional and non-traditional owners in order to provoke a proposal for a land council. Who knows? In that circumstance perhaps it could even encourage other non-traditional owners to move into the area and propose that it is beneficial for them to support the change and to establish a land council on the basis of a plebiscite. I do not know if there is anything in this legislation that will prevent that from happening. That is one of the flaws that I see and there are other people in the Indigenous community who see that potential as well. Where there is a financial gain to be made there will be strong incentives within Indigenous communities, and outside them, to seek to persuade a majority of people to vote for a particular proposal, even though it is not in the interests of the majority for that proposal to succeed.

We might say that that is democracy, but this will be a flawed democracy because we are changing from a traditional owner model to a model which will be based on whoever the Indigenous occupants of the land at the time are, and that is a concern. So why not wait? Why not sit down with those communities and talk about the potential ramifications? Why not look at how we can make sure that the rights of the traditional owners are not overridden or effectively wiped out by these proposals? That is a question this government really needs to answer, but I do not expect that it will. I expect that there will be a lot of bravado about how this will be good for communities. There will be a lot of bravado about how this will attend to the problems of the communities and provide a basis for good things in the future. I wonder why many Indigenous Australians are not convinced by this proposal. Many of the leaders of their communities have denounced the proposals and called for further discussions.

The opportunity is there for the government, but it will not take it. It will ram this legislation through and oppose the proposal to divide the legislation so that the good parts of it can be passed and those matters which are more controversial can be the subject of more rigorous consultation. That is what we see from a government that has become arrogant after 10 years in office—a government that now has the numbers to do whatever it will. That is what we will get from this government and, unfortunately, in some communities we will probably reap the whirlwind accordingly.