Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that Labor will be seeking to divide on this matter. We are very disappointed with the way that this debate has progressed. I understand that it is caballing for me to speak at this point, but we might divide on this question. I will do so because I think it is important that the opposition to the government’s approach be recorded in the Senate.

From my point of view, this has been one of the most depressing processes I have ever been involved in in the Senate because of the way we have been unable to get any proper engagement with the government about recognising the fundamental concerns that traditional owners and opposition senators share about the approach. It is disappointing also, from my point of view—in a personal sense—because, when I took on the shadow Indigenous affairs portfolio, I resolved to try to be constructive and engage with the government on solutions and ways forward rather than just be a critic of the government, and there is a lot to criticise. I have been seeking to get more bipartisan support because I think that, until we get some sort of national consensus around Indigenous affairs and return to a period where we sought to do the best by Indigenous people and assist them in their quest for improving their life opportunities, we will not make real progress. I think the sad thing is that under successive governments we have made very little progress in assisting Indigenous people to move into First World conditions and have First World health and education profiles and the rest.

That approach, I think, requires that people work with Aboriginal people so that we actually build a team approach rather than a paternalistic approach, where you tell people what is best for them. I am increasingly concerned that the government is going to what Mr Abbott calls the ‘new paternalism’ approach, which returns to a phase where governments tell Indigenous people what is good for them and try to impose upon them systems and solutions that the government has arrived at and that it thinks are best for them. Quite frankly, we tried that and it did not work. I have no confidence that it will work on this occasion.

I think the government has failed to learn those lessons. It does disappoint me because I was encouraged that the new minister had some energy and some interest in the portfolio. But, quite frankly, he has destroyed all hope and all respect he might have enjoyed amongst Indigenous people in a very short period of time. The sort of approach reflected in the government’s dealing with this bill is what has so disappointed and—I think it is not unfair to say this—insulted so many Indigenous people.

I thought that we should be able to get an outcome on this bill that was actually supported by all. I do not think we were that far away. A change of approach might have delivered that. Whilst the minister seeks to make debating points about who does and does not support it, the reality is that Indigenous people feel no ownership of this. They feel that no consent has been sought from them. They do not feel that they have been consulted. They do not feel that they are in any way involved in this process. They feel that the government has told them what it is going to do to them in controlling their land. All of the rest of the detail is far less important than that. That is why we have concentrated so much on process and consultation—because it creates the atmosphere in which the detail is debated. They have not been engaged with the detail because they have not been given the opportunity. But the approach is what has been so insulting. It fundamentally represents a lack of respect for traditional owners.

I suppose that nothing brings home to me more the government control of the Senate than this debate. The parliament would never have passed the legislation in this form or in this way, whatever the balance of power was in the Senate, where a government did not have control. This is probably the best evidence as to why governments should not go unchecked. They would have been forced to do this properly rather than in the manner in which they have done it. I do not think the result would have been terribly different in terms of a lot of the detail. There might have been arguments about whether 99-year leases were appropriate and there would certainly have been very strong arguments about Indigenous control once the leases had been granted, in terms of how the subleases were applied—all of those things.

Some of those things will have to be considered because governments will have to get agreement from Indigenous people before they can move the leasing arrangements. But I have very real concerns about the imbalance of power that will apply when it comes to negotiating those things. The government’s intention clearly is to use its capacity to provide essential services like housing and schooling to get outcomes it wants in relation to the leases.

I think, though, that at the heart of this is the disrespect shown to Aboriginal people and the failure to understand the Aboriginal relationship to the land. In the eighties and the nineties we had members of the Liberal Party and the coalition who understood and respected that relationship. We had ministers like Ian Viner and Fred Chaney who retained a lifelong interest in Indigenous people and their progress and success. They very much understood—and I quoted Ian Viner in my speech in the second reading debate—that relationship to the land. That understanding of and respect for the Aboriginal relationship to the land is totally missing in the government’s approach on this occasion. They are seeking to impose Western solutions that suit government needs and priorities. I think that could have been matched with some respect for Indigenous ownership, culture, traditional owners and their relationship to their land. That could have got us a good result that was pro economic development without fundamentally showing disrespect to Aboriginal people and failing to respect their property rights, which is what has certainly happened here.

There is a lot more water to go under the bridge with these propositions. I think that some of the claims that were made earlier by the government about the revolution in private home ownership will prove to be more rhetoric than reality. Labor is fundamentally supportive of any measure that encourages economic development on Indigenous land and is certainly willing to support Indigenous aspiration for home ownership in their communities if that can be achieved. Of course, there are fundamental economic constraints on those aspirations that currently exist, such as the cost of housing, the lack of economic activity and the lack of employment—things that allow people to service mortgages.

Putting all of that to one side, what has characterised the debate and has most concerned those of us who are not part of the government is the lack of respect for Indigenous people and their property rights and the lack of any attempt to seek consent and cooperation in moving forward with these issues. As I said earlier, previous ministers had an understanding and respect for Indigenous relationship to land, whereas the current minister traipses around the country, attends various conferences and describes Aboriginal relationship to land and community control over land as an expression of communism. He describes Indigenous culture and relationship to land as communism. That reflects the lack of respect and understanding of Indigenous control and relationship to their land.

We are having a debate about a change to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, a change to the conditions that apply to Aboriginal land, and the minister responsible for the legislation, whose duty inside the government is to represent the interests of Indigenous people, provides the context with an allegation that communal ownership of land by Indigenous people and their relationship to land is an expression of communism and that it needs to be overthrown—that it is an outdated concept that needs to be overthrown. That is the context in which we have debated Indigenous land rights.

We have also had the context of the continual denigration of Aboriginal culture. We had a debate about violence, where the allegation was made that Indigenous culture is a defence for violence, paedophilia and the abuse of children. All of that serves to denigrate Indigenous people. Of course, no such defence occurs. There is no basis in Indigenous law and culture for child abuse or violence against women. The way that the minister and the government have sought to characterise Aboriginal people in that way has deeply offended them and has deeply hurt the debate about Indigenous culture and support for Indigenous culture in this community.

A lot of Aboriginal men who have spoken to me are very upset about the continual characterisation of Aboriginal men as paedophiles and abusers of women and children. That is terribly damaging. It offends them and it very much hurts them personally. I think there has been no attempt to provide the balance that is required in those debates. It is as though somehow child abuse and violence against women is a problem only of Aboriginal culture, when we all know that it is a very serious problem in non-Indigenous society. We also know that many of the people who are now committing acts of child abuse or violence are actually graduates from institutions run by non-Indigenous people where that sort of activity was taken against them. They are victims of child abuse or violence themselves and, as we know, those things tend to be repeated by the victims. So we actually have to accept some responsibility for some of these issues. As I said, that characterisation of all Aboriginal people has been allowed to develop.

The lack of a government voice in trying to provide some balance in that has been depressing. The failure of any of us in other parties in politics to get any traction with alternative views is a problem, but more important is the problem that Indigenous voices are unheard in our community unless they express views that suit certain interests. We really do have a problem with the lack of Indigenous voices being heard in this country. We have to find a way of allowing Indigenous people to be in the public debate, express their views and be represented. Currently they do not get representation and they do not have their voices heard, and that is seriously undermining the capacity for them to advance Indigenous people’s interests. We have to find a way to allow their voices to be heard.

I also have serious concerns about the way that the OIPC, the government department, have been operating and about the attitude they have adopted with regard to Indigenous Australians. That is of increasing concern and it is something that I will be taking up in future weeks. I am deeply depressed about the way that this debate has gone. I think it has been disrespectful of Aboriginal people. The failure to try and seek their consent is a huge mistake by this government. I think we could have done much better and still made much good progress towards the joint objectives, the shared objectives, of Indigenous people and all politicians in this country, which are appropriate economic development for Indigenous people, opportunities for employment and improvements in their standard of living.

Labor will be opposing the bill. While we share much with the government in terms of intentions, the debate and the context in which it has occurred has meant that this has been a process that has shown disrespect for Indigenous people and their property rights. That is why Labor will not be supporting the bill.