Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Today some new information has become available that I thought should be shared with the Senate in the hope that the government might see the wisdom of our arguments on some of the concerns over this bill. Mr Miloon Kothari, who is the United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing, is on a mission to Australia at the moment. In fact the special rapporteur was invited by the federal government to visit the country, with the general objective of examining and reporting on the status of the realisation of the right to adequate housing and other related rights in the country, with particular attention to aspects of gender equality and nondiscrimination. He was invited to engage in dialogues with the government and the civil society on their efforts to secure these rights and to identify practical solutions and best practices in the realisation of rights related to his mandate.

Just a bit over an hour ago he released some preliminary observations. His observations on housing, and Indigenous housing in particular, are a cause for concern in many areas. He made comments about what he perceives as the approach to the provision of adequate housing—that is, the belief that ownership and the market will take care of the issues. He indicated that he believes that this could be a mistake, that it is a mistake that has been made in the US and Canada and that we should be learning from those mistakes. He expressed extreme concern about some of the situations that he saw in Indigenous communities. He said that he believes that they are amongst the worst that he has seen in the world. He also went on to say that this is in huge contrast to the wealth of this country. He questioned Australia’s commitment to international instruments. Mr Kothari said that, given the scale of the Indigenous housing problem, it needs to be much more of a national priority. He was critical of the reliance on the homeownership model.

Mr Kothari made some specific comments about this particular bill. I understand that he has been out to visit many communities and has spoken to various government agencies and organisations. He believes, from his consultations, that this bill is too hurried and that there has been a lack of community information. People and service providers he spoke to did not know about it, despite the fact that this is a major change. He called into question Australia’s commitment to international obligations and the UN convention on economic and cultural rights. He was concerned about the move from land as a community right and identity to an economic good, believing that that might be a mistake. I understand that Mr Kothari commented that the UN special rapporteur on indigenous rights will also be making a comment on this bill and that he hopes that the government will reconsider this bill.

Mr Kothari made those comments at the media conference that he has just had. He has also made some written comments. He has commented on the ‘indivisible relationship between the right to land and the right to adequate housing’. He said:

This is even more so for Indigenous communities, where land is an integral part of their cultural identity. The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, submitted in parliament during the special rapporteur’s visit to Australia, raise grave concerns as to the extent to which the land rights of Indigenous peoples in the NT will be maintained.

He went on to say:

The special rapporteur notes with concern reports he has received that there has been insufficient consultation with Indigenous landowners or the opportunity to provide input into this process, particularly on key issues such as the 99-year lease provision. Most concerning is the potential removal of the role of Indigenous people as decision makers over the use and access of land during the lease period. Such measures would undermine the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples in the Northern Territory and may call into question Australia’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including its provisions on self-determination.

This is from an outside person who has been invited in specifically by the federal government. I believe that these comments on the bill are of great concern. They re-emphasise, I believe, community concern about the provisions of the bill. Like us, Mr Kothari hopes that the federal government will reconsider some of the provisions in the bill.

Having said that, I have a specific question that I would like to have addressed, if possible. During the discussion and the debate on this bill there have been numerous references to the voluntary nature of the leases. However, we have also heard from members of the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats that we all have concerns about what I call cross-compliance between funding provisions and the requirement to sign leases. We have heard of at least two examples where this is supposedly already occurring. I am seeking a commitment that, if these are voluntary leases, no such commitments will be required by the federal government—that is, they will not require communities to sign these leases to get any form of funding, whether it is additional funding or funding that many of us believe should be given to fulfil the basic requirements for housing and other services.