Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Let us be clear about a couple of things here. Firstly, the Democrats would support straightaway any measure that the government identifies specifically within these bills that has to be passed today, tomorrow or next week that is essential to protect a child from harm tonight. If the government identifies those measures specifically in this legislation, and it can clearly demonstrate that they are essential to provide immediate protection for a child that is at risk, then we will support those aspects of this bill. That needs to be clearly stated up-front.

We have already heard interjections from government members during the last contribution—anybody that stands up and says, ‘Hang on a minute; let us have a proper look at these bills,’ immediately gets slandered with, ‘You are trying to wreck the whole thing. You are trying to destroy it. You do not care about children. Children are going to be hurt tonight because you are holding this up.’ We, collectively as a parliament, and the political process have ignored this problem and wider issues of concern to Indigenous people for decades and certainly in the life of this government. You cannot ignore an issue for 11 years and then suddenly say, ‘Yes, this is a crisis; it is so urgent that we now do not have time to listen to you about how we should do it properly.’ That is, in effect, what is being attempted to be done here.

If we are genuine, as I believe we all are, about wanting to be as effective as possible in assisting Aboriginal children particularly, Indigenous people in the Territory more broadly and, hopefully, Indigenous people across the nation then the least we can do is try to make sure that we do our job properly in figuring out how best to assist them. In terms of the Senate’s role in this job, that means looking at the legislation that is put before us. If a case can be made that parts of the legislation are urgently needed to protect a child that is at an immediate risk, then make that case. But do not just smear everybody who raises questions and accuse them of holding the whole thing up, putting children at risk and playing politics. This is too important for politics for all of us. I hope we can take that attitude in the course of the coming debate.

It also needs to be made clear what the motion before us is about. It is about exempting the various pieces of legislation dealing with the Northern Territory situation and some other measures that I will come back to later—but the bulk of it deals with the Northern Territory situation—from the standing orders that would otherwise prevent them from being brought on for debate straightaway. This bill has just been introduced. As we know, it was made public only yesterday. Frankly, I think there is a good case to be made, in terms of the ability of the Senate to do its job properly, that you do not begin debating today 500 pages of complex legislation that was introduced yesterday, particularly if the issue is very important—unless a case can be made for immediacy, which has not been made. The effect of this cut-off motion that the government has put is to enable debate to start straightaway. If we do not pass it the effect is not to stop the bills coming on, it is not to hold everything up; the effect is that the bills will not be able to be debated until we come back in three weeks time. That is what I am advised. It does not hold them up until next year. It means that when we come back in the first sitting week in September we can then start on the debate. That would mean there would be three weeks intervening when we can actually properly look at it and actually do some listening. That is not only an eminently sensible approach; it is the responsible approach to such an important issue. It is a common-sense approach, frankly.

I have no doubt about the minister’s personal commitment to this issue; it is quite clear that he feels very strongly about it emotionally. But he is not the only one who feels strongly about this. All of us who feel strongly about it for all sorts of reasons and from all sides of the debate need to make sure that our strong emotions and feelings do not get in the way of us being able to think rationally. That is what we need in this debate—an ability to combine the strong emotion, commitment and desire to assist in making significant change with rational thinking, common sense and some listening. We need to do a lot more listening, not just to each other but more importantly to the people of the Northern Territory who are going to be most directly affected.

I do not think that many people in the wider community are aware that the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 has a whole range of measures that have nothing at all to do with the Northern Territory. That legislation puts in place the framework for enabling payments to be quarantined for people across the country if they are seen as not meeting requirements regarding enrolment of their child at school or school attendance benchmarks, or if they have notifications regarding child protection. It also includes the framework regarding the Cape York welfare reform trials, which I am supportive of trialling, of letting them go ahead and seeing how they work.

There are significant, and—let us not kid ourselves—very far reaching changes in one of these bills to do with potential quarantining of welfare payments for parents across the country in relation to areas like school attendance, enrolment and child neglect notifications. As I have been informed by government briefings, these changes are not likely to come into operation until 2008, and certainly not before next year. We are not going to get a chance to look at these very far reaching and significant measures. We are being asked to start debating them straightaway. Even though there is not the faintest suggestion that there is urgency for these measures, they are being pushed through under the cloak of the Northern Territory situation.

I am not saying that I oppose those measures; frankly, I am interested in exploring how those measures could work, what other things might attach to them, what role the states would play. I would be interested in hearing more from the Cape York institute about how those measures are going to work up there, because they have done a lot of work on them. They have got resources backing it. They have got a whole range of programs attached to it. They are linking it in to people at the community level. It would be very useful for the Senate to inform itself about all of those things.

If we were to support this motion we would be facilitating an inability for us to inform ourselves. If we vote for this motion we will be forcing ourselves not to inform ourselves, which is simply not responsible. The whole point and the history of the standing order that prevents legislation being introduced and debated straightaway was to prevent legislation from being bulldozed through unless the case could be made for urgency. I know the government has tabled a statement of reasons as to why these bills are urgent but I do not think that made the case, particularly—and let me emphasise this—given that the consequence of not exempting these bills from the standing orders, the cut-off motion, is not to put them off until next year but just to put them off until the next sitting fortnight, the second week of September.

As I said at the start—and I will continue to emphasise this, because I am not going to let the Democrats be smeared with the suggestion that we are putting children at risk simply by doing our job of properly scrutinising important legislation—if there is any measure in these bills that the government can identify that is specifically necessary to protect a child who is at risk now, then I ask them to do that in the debate forthcoming, presuming this motion will pass. That is an important issue.

We are not the font of all wisdom, the government is not the font of all wisdom, the minister is not the font of all wisdom. None of us here are, particularly on these issues which are difficult, complex and involve a part of the country which, frankly, most of us do not have a great deal of experience with—the Northern Territory—and any experience we do have is inevitably fleeting. There are a lot of people who have very helpful and valuable information about how we can best do this.

There is the old adage that has entered into the public lexicon in a cynical and ironic way of someone coming to your door and saying, ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help,’ and everybody runs scared in the other direction. The reason that has such resonance with people is because it is so true. That is because governments across the board, of all persuasions and at all levels, and political parties in general—it is probably part of the human condition where people have any power and authority—tend to think: ‘Well, I know what’s best. I’m coming in and I’m going to do it.’ Nobody has more experience with that than Indigenous people. People just roll up and say, ‘We’re here to help; now out of the way.’ If we are all here to help, as hopefully we all are in this area, then let us do a little bit of listening about how best we can help, before we charge in.

The final point is that there are things already happening in the Northern Territory, and many of those things are not contingent on what is in this legislation, and they will continue to happen. This legislation is only one component of the whole range of things that are being proposed and that are being done in the Northern Territory. Properly examining this legislation does not bring everything to a screaming halt; it simply ensures that the implementation of the intervention—as it is called—occurs, as much as possible, in an effective way. Surely, what we all want is for it to be effective.

The Prime Minister in speaking about this intervention a few weeks ago said, ‘Along the way we’ll make mistakes.’ Of course, the government will make mistakes, as we all make mistakes, and nobody can suggest otherwise. But we do have a responsibility to minimise those mistakes rather than just say, ‘Oh well, we’ll do what we think’s best; if we make mistakes we can’t help it.’ A lot of the time you can help it, if you think through things properly. Certainly, with this legislation, it is our responsibility as a Senate to think things through properly. Nobody can avoid mistakes being made but we certainly can avoid some of them. Many of them can be avoided quite easily if we do a little bit of listening and a little bit of thinking, and there is not enough of that at the moment. There is plenty of heat.

I think it is fantastic that so many people are focusing on the terrible conditions faced by many Aboriginal people and putting some genuine thought into how we can shift that situation and provide a serious circuit-breaker. I congratulate the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for that. It is a really good situation and it does provide a real opportunity. But it also provides an opportunity that can be squandered, as previous opportunities have been, and it provides a situation—let us not kid ourselves—where, as bad as some of the situations may be, we can actually make things worse if we go about this in the wrong way. The need to do something should not be confused with the need to do anything, and I fear that is a real risk that is before us. We need to put those things more to the front of our minds over the next little while as we are considering some of these issues.

So the Democrats will oppose this motion. I need to clarify that. I initially thought that the cut-off would mean that the legislation would not be debated until next year. I am informed that, due to the arcane nature of what defines various things with sessions and other sorts of things, it means that we would start debating it in the next sitting fortnight, which, whilst very quick, is nonetheless appropriate given the circumstances. But starting debate on the legislation now or in five minutes time, which is what will happen, is not appropriate and not responsible, given the circumstances, unless the government can make a better case for particular measures within it that are absolutely essential immediately to protect children at risk now.