Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with great interest to Senator Ian Macdonald’s contribution to the debate and appreciate that he summarised many of the important measures that are in this suite of legislation. We all know why we are here. This is a very significant package of legislation that, for us, is a response to a decision to confront a situation that has been going on in the country for a long time. From many of the previous speakers we have heard about the litany of reports that preceded the Little children are sacred report. I do not know how many people in this chamber have read that report, but it would reduce you to tears to read it. The issue we have to confront is that we can talk about the fact that action has not been taken sooner, but that does not lessen the imperative to act now, and nor is the fact that child abuse occurs in all communities a reason for us to sit on our hands in the face of this report and the many other reports that have been presented to the parliament over the years.

Labor’s in-principle support was given six weeks ago and, as we heard then and we continue to say, it was given in good faith. We were told by the government that it would bring forward practical measures—both a short-term response and long-term solutions—that would address the cycle of abuse going on in these communities. Given the government’s track record, there were some concerns, but we gave the government the benefit of the doubt and waited to see what form these measures would take. In our response to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 and related legislation we need to remember that there has been a failure both of responsibility and of trust in relation to Indigenous communities in Australia. We also need to remember that children cannot and certainly should not be considered separately from their families and the broader communities in which they live, so long-term workable solutions for these children must involve measures to address the underlying issues affecting the situations that they are living with. Addiction, substance abuse, employment, health and housing all have to be part of the longer term solution. Without addressing these issues, any measures that we are talking about that are about keeping children safe will be piecemeal and, frankly, destined to fail. Professor Fiona Stanley said only last week:

... you can’t protect the children without supporting and involving their community.

That is the real issue that has been articulated in many of the contributions to the debate so far. This is not an issue about gabfests and long-term consultation processes. There is a lack of respect in the way in which this legislation has been brought forward; it is a disrespect of Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal families, who should be involved in the solutions that are being developed to address the issues that were raised in the Little children are sacred report.

Labor is very clear that any measures that we take now to rebuild the capacity of these communities will help them to be sustainable in the future and will provide some opportunities in the long term for these children to actively participate in Australian society. We want to make sure that these and any measures taken to protect vulnerable children are effective, and I am very concerned that the way in which this legislation has been introduced might actually prevent the measures from working as well as they could.

I have absolutely no doubt that Minister Brough’s heart is in the right place with these measures and that we share the aim of protecting these children and giving them a better future, but I am very concerned about the way that he and the Howard government have gone about addressing these issues. Minister Brough, as you know, has been an Army man. When he announced his intervention strategy on the day before we rose in June, ‘stabilise’, ‘normalise’ and ‘exit’ were his words—classic tactics that he has applied to this task. Those tactics might be appropriate on the battlefield, but this is not a battlefield; this is a protracted and complex problem that requires a comprehensive response. We are dealing with people whose emotional and cultural wellbeing is just as important as their physical wellbeing, and these are children and communities that have been let down systematically by the Australian government and by Australian society over a long period of time. These children belong to communities which, in some cases, have been profoundly broken.

Mr Brough said in his second reading speech that the aim of this legislation is ‘to build sustainable, healthy approaches in the long term’. To do this requires us to focus on building the capacity of these communities to manage their own affairs and to contribute to Australian society. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, has said that we do not just need to stop the violence from occurring; we need to ‘prevent it from re-occurring’. There needs to be greater emphasis on preventative measures. He said:

The real obstacles to ending violence are insufficient professional and support staff, resources and basic infrastructure ...

Tackling alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, drug abuse and violence against children and women in these communities requires access to services that currently are just not there. This package of legislation has to address this fundamental issue. We need to consult with those affected by these changes. We need to listen to what Indigenous people have to say and provide them with the opportunities to be involved in the decision-making processes around setting up services that are going to address the issues. We need to demonstrate greater respect for the people that this package concerns. We also need to respect the genuine concern of all Australians to see that the abuses are stopped, that education is enhanced and that our Aboriginal children are given the same opportunities as others for a rewarding and fulfilling life and a capacity to make a broader contribution to society.

The lack of detail on the government’s measures provided until the very last minute has caused genuine fear and concern in Indigenous communities, many of which understandably fail to see the connection between child sexual abuse and, for example, the removal of the permit systems. The consultation that is required involves paying attention to the research and the recommendations already available from Indigenous people.

This intervention is a missed opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Little children are sacred report. Senator Siewert was very passionate in her concern about that. The report emphasised:

It is critical that both governments commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities.

When I say this, I am really echoing what Mick Dodson and Tom Calma have said. You cannot have sustainable solutions without involving the communities. When consultation takes place, you end up with measures that work on the ground. You end up with provisions that seem to be missing from this intervention, such as language and cultural training for police officers and soldiers or consultation that enables us to take into consideration relationships between kin and country for Indigenous people—an understanding which seems to be manifestly lacking in the language of this government.

The government does not have a good record of consulting or engaging with Indigenous communities. We heard all about that in the report evaluating the COAG trials and the shared responsibility agreements that have never worked. Labor is committed to prioritising questions of Indigenous wellbeing in a much more consultative way—moving forward, as Jenny Macklin said yesterday, with trust and a reciprocal partnership with Indigenous Australians.

In relation to the social security amendments and quarantining of welfare payments that are part of this package, this legislation establishes a national income management regime applying to people on welfare payments and those whose children are deemed to be at risk of abuse or who are not enrolled in or are not attending school. It applies to all people on welfare payments in designated areas of the Northern Territory, but there is a broader application to parents on welfare across Australia. Under this income management regime, people falling within these categories are going to have part or all of their payments held in an income management account, the purpose of which will be to pay for basic needs. We understand that this is a way of making sure that welfare payments go towards those they are intended to help, towards feeding children and making sure that they are clothed and cared for so that they can get to school and be engaged and develop the skills they need. But reciprocal obligations are important and there are longstanding and deep-seated problems in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Australia. These have to do with the long history of dispossession suffered by Indigenous Australians and what we have to acknowledge have been some haphazard and often damaging attempts by Australian governments to involve, assimilate or coerce Indigenous peoples into Australian society. One of the real issues that the Aboriginal people who came here yesterday wanted to make sure was put on the record was that this should not be about making people lose their Aboriginality and live as white people.

Whole communities are not punished in our society for what only some people have done, and yet that is really what it seems will happen under this legislation. The jury is still out as to whether this kind of welfare quarantining is effective in reducing disadvantage. That is why it is important to have a statutory review of the provisions, and we certainly need to think about the implications of this legislation for the wider Australian community.

Mutual responsibility will only work as a policy if it is actually that—mutual. Both sides need to take responsibility, and that includes government. It is incumbent upon the government to consult, to listen, to earn the trust of Indigenous communities and to make good on the promises to provide employment and economic development as well as health services, education and community safety initiatives that it has committed to in this package but which have to be delivered sustainably over the long term.

More broadly, there are significant concerns about the working of this legislation. For example, the National Welfare Rights Network has expressed its concern that Aboriginal parents in the Northern Territory will lose their right to appeal against a Centrelink decision to take over the management of their welfare payment. Their argument is that the right to appeal has always been a fundamental protection for social security recipients against what they might refer to as bureaucratic neglect and error. They are concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent for us all and strips away protection for an entire group of Australians, based solely on where they live.

On the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, Kevin Rudd spoke about Labor’s commitment to Indigenous children. I know that several other people have referred to his speech and how significant his commitment is. He spoke about the importance of having achievable, measurable goals to address Indigenous advantage. He gave Labor’s support to the Cape York Institute model because it is inclusive, it has been thought through and it is consultative. We support the model because it shows that tough policy decisions and consultations do not have to be mutually exclusive. As a result of that 1967 referendum, we are all Australian citizens. With that comes a responsibility to be involved in the community, to vote, to work, to abide by the law and to bring up our children so that they can participate too. A measure to encourage such participation is needed, but it needs to be aimed to involve and not to punish, to include and not to ostracise. The aim of this policy should be social inclusion and helping people to participate in the community. To do that, we need to boost support services as much as we need to quarantine welfare payments. We need more early intervention programs to deal with alcohol abuse, drugs, gambling and violence. We need to be careful that this legislation is not unnecessarily punitive.

We certainly need to ensure that there are rights of appeal and rights of review. There needs to be a statutory review of both the township leases and the welfare quarantining, especially in the Northern Territory. It is our responsibility not just to make the grand gesture, the ones that make those in power look tough; we need to be there for the long term and make sure that the measures we put in place work. It is in that spirit of taking responsibility for ensuring the long-term safety of these children, and the long-term sustainability of their communities, that we ask the government to support Labor’s amendments during the committee stage.

I want to touch on the issue of the transitional payments to make up the difference between CDEP earnings and income support payments, and the phasing-out of the Community Development Employment Projects. This is useful but it is not enough. Many people have expressed serious concerns about the impact on communities that the transition from CDEP to Newstart will have within nine months, by 1 July 2008, and how quickly that process, which was to be a managed process, has now really gone out of the window.

I will give an example of how this intervention is being carried out. Organisations running CDEPs in the Northern Territory have received letters from Indigenous coordination centres amending the conditions of their funding to include a condition that they must comply and cooperate with all directions given by the government’s to-be-appointed administrator, and they have been given 20 days to sign their contract or lose their funding. These are not measures that will empower communities. They usurp, rather than strengthen, Indigenous governance structures.

Community organisations currently working under CDEP will now have to engage in a competitive tendering process for Work for the Dole programs or will have to engage in STEP. Of course, they may not be successful in winning those tenders. Another provider, perhaps one from interstate, may be successful. I refer, for example, to Mission Australia and WorkVentures, who are doing fantastic work around Australia. But if an interstate provider wins those tenders it will lead to the disempowerment of local communities to engage in developing solutions. Fundamentally, it draws moneys that would otherwise be invested in the community to support local community activities out to these organisations that do not belong in the communities.

The 2006 changes to CDEP provided incentives to move people from the program into enterprises. Firstly, we have no idea how many enterprises were successfully established and, secondly, we have no idea how many of those enterprises have actually been sustainable, even over 12 months. There is no information about how effective this measure, or any other transition to employment measure, has been. This is critical to the ongoing sustainability of these communities.

A Cape York Institute report highlighted the importance of creating an economic base for Indigenous communities, but there is little evidence in the legislation that that has been thought through very well at all. So there is little confidence that this emergency response will address the fundamental issue of economic independence. The legislation aims primarily to protect Indigenous children from abuse and neglect. We are all in agreement that the protection of children is a fundamental obligation of government, especially as we have seen in the report, and, as Jenny Macklin said yesterday, when their vulnerability has been so laid bare.

For this reason, Labor are providing our in-principle support for these measures, and we continue to support them, but we do have reservations. We need to focus not on punishing these communities but on building their capacity to take responsibility, on empowering them and not disempowering them. We welcome action on this most important question, but we want to be able to act in partnership with Indigenous people, in consultation with them. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. This time, we need to listen very carefully.

With respect to Senator Bartlett’s contribution this morning, I note that he is a passionate supporter of Indigenous communities and of addressing the disadvantage of those communities. We are all in this boat together, and we all have a responsibility to address this issue now.

Debate interrupted.