Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Nearly seven weeks ago Pat Anderson and Rex Wild QC handed down a report as a result of their inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. Infamously now known as the Little children are sacred report, their interim report of October last year stated that ‘sexual abuse of children is not restricted to those of Aboriginal descent, nor committed only by those of Aboriginal descent, nor just to people in the Northern Territory’. The report also reiterated the observation that, given the nature of Aboriginal communities, the classic signs of children likely to suffer neglect or abuse is more apparent.

Dysfunctional families, whether they are Indigenous or non-Indigenous, reflect and encompass problems of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lack of housing and unemployment. The first recommendation of their report says:

That Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be designated as an issue of urgent national significance by both the Australian and Northern Territory Governments.

It further suggests both governments establish a collaborative partnership and commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities. So how is it that an issue of urgent national significance becomes a national emergency and in fact a crisis? How is it that the problems do not just relate to Aboriginal communities, but these bills before us only focus on the Northern Territory? How is it that there are some communities where there are no problems at all but at least 70 of these communities have been targeted purely on their population size? How is it that this federal government has had 11 long years to do something in Aboriginal communities to make a real difference but it has not done so? How is it that this government has been responsible for the oversight of the community known as Mutitjulu, under Parks Australia—hardly a shining example of a community that is coping—yet it believes it can do better in 70 other places in the Northern Territory?

These bills provide for a government response to addressing child abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory by amending existing Commonwealth legislation. Be under no illusion: these bills before the Senate will dramatically and drastically change the lives of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The details and aspects of bills we are considering have been presented to the parliament without consultation, without informed consent from either the Indigenous people it will affect or the Northern Territory government. Since the announcement that this government was planning to intervene in more than 70 communities in the Northern Territory, we have struggled to find out the details, the nature and the impact of this measure. Originally, there was concern that health checks for children would be compulsory—that has now changed. People were very unclear, in fact frightened, about the role of the army and NORFORCE and that is slowly changing. Information on these changes has been delivered through press release and media interviews by this government alone.

I spent six weeks travelling throughout the Northern Territory with my colleagues Warren Snowdon and the bush members of the Northern Territory government, especially the Indigenous members, following the announcement of this intervention. I want to spend a minute to pay tribute to those Indigenous members in being prepared to assist, inform and reassure people in their electorates and communities. Certainly their arrival was welcomed—although, bear in mind, it is not their legislation. Their efforts in talking to people in their electorates have been given little thanks or recognition by this government.

Indigenous people affected by this legislation are distressed and stressed about what the implications will mean for them. They do not understand or accept why they have been targeted or why they were not been and told about these changes before they happened. If there was not a national emergency before this government intervened then, let me tell you, out on the ground there is certainly one now.

The Anderson-Wild report contained 97 recommendations. The federal government has acted on only three of these through this legislation. Instead, it gives the Commonwealth minister an unprecedented level of discretion to act with the same powers as the Northern Territory minister when it comes to town camps, to amending Northern Territory legislation, through regulation I might add, and to sacking local government councils. These bills will ensure that every aspect of Aboriginal life will be controlled by the Commonwealth, such as the administration of all Commonwealth and NT programs in these communities, and will be overseen by the minister. Blanket quarantining of Centrelink will be involved in the spending of money, and the leasing of communities will mean that the land will be held by the Commonwealth for at least five years. While we in the Labor Party support the protection of children, this government has failed completely to understand either the underlying causes or the best comprehensive long-term approaches to these solutions. The only sustainable approach is to involve these people in long-term solutions with maximum community input for their ownership, and only then will solutions be sustained, long term and effective.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 July, Fiona Stanley, paediatrician and former Australian of the Year, comments that virtually all populations around the globe with a history of social exclusion and marginalisation have the same types of problems that we see exhibited in Indigenous people in Australia. So why is it that when you look at the evidence of Maori, Canadian and American indigenous people they fare far better? What is it that is different? Why can’t this government ask that simple question? She suggests:

For a start they have specialised, well-funded health services; effective partnerships and involvement of indigenous people; and many more indigenous professionals who are ... advocates for their people.

…            …            …

Treaty negotiations and land rights are linked to outcomes that ensure local resources, employment and community economic opportunities.

But, most importantly, there is a recognition of history and past dispossession that provides for some restorative justice.

What is missing in this package is a lack of social research and compassion. The astonishing lack of discussion, let alone negotiation, has not paved the way to convince me that this government has any intention of providing lifelong skills for Indigenous people, no intention of empowering them or ensuring that, after this emergency is over, the whole exercise will leave these people with the ability to self-determine their future and the skills to do that. The Australian Labor Party has indicated its support for some of these measures, with the key focus being to tackle child abuse and neglect. Of course I, like all of my colleagues, want to see the end of child abuse everywhere, not only in Indigenous communities.

I also believe that this legislation, which purports to tackle sexual abuse in Indigenous communities, must—like any other legislation—comply with the Racial Discrimination Act. This would ensure that the actions of the government do not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour, descent or ethnic origin and are consistent with the previous track record of all federal governments when it comes to responding to Indigenous issues. I do not accept the non-application of part II of the RDA. That eliminates the possibility of the courts fulfilling their normal role, which is to decide whether or not this proposed legislation is a special measure. Before the committee hearing last week, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner said that an essential feature of a special measure is that it is done in consultation with, and is generally with the consent of, the people who are subject to it. The apparent lack of consultation prior to the introduction of these bills is therefore a matter of serious concern. I have noted the comments of HREOC that this could be a special measure. But in order for that to occur, consultation is needed. This government should immediately seek to do so once these bills are passed through this parliament.

As legislators we should be sending a clear message that we have confidence in this plan, confidence that it will be to the benefit of the people in the Northern Territory and confidence that it will achieve results against the aim that has been set for it, which is the protection of our children. In doing so, we must also observe the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act. This is a basic principle for the opposition, for this country and for the Indigenous community of this country. In fact, this very point was made by former Federal Court magistrate Murray Wilcox, who said on ABC’s AM program last Tuesday:

... the Government is saying this is racially discriminatory legislation but nonetheless it is to be regarded as valid.

That is the reason why we propose an amendment to eliminate such measures that would restrict the role of the courts and of the RDA. We should stand by that legislation. It is an important check and balance on any government. This government should not walk away from its obligations to ensure a healthy and lively debate on this legislation and should not shut down the role of the courts in scrutinising this legislation.

I want to turn to a number of other elements in the legislation. Firstly, this government has failed to demonstrate in any way how proposed changes to the permit system will assist in protecting children. They claim that removal of the permit system that is presently in force will open up communities to more visitors, which somehow will prevent or lessen child abuse. In fact, the Northern Territory police have told us the opposite: they have told us that having this permit system in place has on more than one occasion meant they were able to use the permit system as a means of controlling what occurs on these lands. Where drivers could not produce permits, police were able to stop and search their vehicles and thereby prevent grog and drug runners entering the communities. The removal of the permit system will prevent police from doing this and achieve the opposite of what the government claims: more drug runners and grog runners. In fact, today the Police Federation of Australia said that it is of the view that the Australian government has failed to make the case that there is any connection between the permit system and child sex abuse in Aboriginal communities and that therefore the changes to the permit system are unwarranted. When Minister Brough put out a discussion paper on the possible changes to the permit system, not one Aboriginal community wanted change. But their views are being totally ignored. That is a total lack of respect for Indigenous people.

Labor does and always will support Aboriginal land rights and the act that underpins them. This legislation gives the federal government the leasehold over prescribed areas for five years, but the underlying title stays with the traditional owners, who therefore will ultimately regain control. Their traditional rights to continue to use their land must not be affected. I personally have grave concerns about aspects of this legislation in relation to the compulsory acquisition of the land for five years. I am yet to be convinced that this needs to occur in order for this plan to be implemented.

The legislation also scraps the CDEP, the Community Development Employment Program. While it would be welcome if there were enough real jobs in remote communities for Aboriginal people to occupy, the reality is that this simply is not the case. For many organisations, especially those servicing the most remote organisations—like homeland resource centres—the scrapping of CDEP with the resultant reduction in funding and loss of activity payments will be potentially disastrous to the homelands and the outstation movement. Again, this move will do little to protect children. Indeed, if it forces Aboriginal people to move away from homelands to larger communities with more crowded housing, it may do the opposite.

We had a number of submissions before us last Friday from homelands associations in the Northern Territory. The Laynhapuy, the Marthakal from Elcho Island and Bawanunga all put in submissions. They hold grave concerns about the impact of the abolition of CDEP. They say that the government response could well precipitate the collapse of well-functioning organisations. This is because the precipitous withdrawal of funding will not give them time to plan or structurally adjust. This would create a climate of extreme uncertainty, which makes retention and recruitment of staff and the maintenance of morale extremely difficult. It would also cause uncertainty as to the security of land and assets. The impact and consequences of the removal of CDEP have not been discussed with Indigenous people. Why is it that you can live in Lajamanu and not get access to CDEP from 30 September but travel across the border into WA and still be eligible to work under this scheme? This is not about ensuring Indigenous people get access to employment opportunities but about ensuring that this government gets access to their money. That is the only way their money can be quarantined: through Centrelink rather than through wages. What is fair about quarantining the payments of Indigenous people if they are on Centrelink but not if they are on a wage? The assumption here is that people who are earning a salary know how to or in fact do spend their income appropriately. There is no evidence to suggest that that is a fact.

There are elements of this legislation that are worthy of support, such as the crackdown on pornography. Yet the measures do not go to limiting access to adult channels on Austar and do not go to educating adults in these communities about the appropriate time to watch these adult channels—which is not when children are up and around. As such, you have to ask how effective they will be. I believe that the restrictions on alcohol also warrant consideration, although there are communities that have alcohol management plans in place and these plans should be allowed to remain. That seems unlikely.

This legislation and the process in which it has been developed are far from perfect. Just today I received a letter from the Elliott District Community Government Council. Elliott is a community located 700 kilometres south of Darwin and 780 kilometres north of Alice Springs. It is the largest remote community in the Barkly region. But guess what? It is not one of the 70 communities that have been targeted by this government. The Elliott community have written to say that, while they applaud the federal government’s national response to protect Indigenous children in the Northern Territory and support the proposed initiatives, they are extremely disappointed that the Elliott community has not been considered to be included in the initial emergency response. For some reason the excuse that the government is giving is that it is a town camp. I fail to understand how that can be so, and I will be interested to hear the minister’s response when we ask why Elliott has been left out of this strategy when it has over 650 Indigenous residents.

We can all see that the health and wellbeing of children are of paramount priority and need to be acted upon immediately. While neither side of this house has an unblemished record when it comes to Indigenous affairs, the history books are filled with brash, radical and hurried plans attempting to fix Indigenous disadvantage. Those plans were not given full consideration by parliament, they did not provide for full and proper consultation with Indigenous people and they have failed. We have argued for a review of part 4 of the legislation as well as the section of the legislation that deals with the quarantining of Centrelink payments 12 months following the implementation of this legislation so that we can continue to work to improve existing measures to the benefit of Indigenous people, and to do so in a spirit of consultation with Indigenous people.

On this side of the house, we are committed to examining these measures and, while we believe they need amendment, we are committed to implementing measures which will deal with not only short-term social abuse issues affecting young Indigenous kids, but also which will address the economic and cultural sustainability of Indigenous communities into the future. There are many elements of this legislation that I find personally abhorrent and I have great difficulty in giving it my support. I am not convinced that this legislation will lead to long-term gains. Look at this government’s track record. This government has had 11 long years to commit to fixing the housing crisis in the Northern Territory, but it has not. It could have ensured that we were not the only developed country in the world to still have trachoma in epidemic proportions in our Indigenous people and allocated the $22 million needed to eradicate it, but it has not. It could have ensured that there were adequate facilities in communities for the aged and funding for long-term programs for the youth, but it has not. It could have said ‘sorry’ to the stolen generation and addressed their mental health problems, but it has not done that either. It could have ensured that stolen wages were returned to Indigenous people, but it has failed in that area as well. And it could have guaranteed that reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous people was something they would long be remembered for, but this government will not.

In the year when Indigenous people should be celebrating the 40th anniversary of gaining the vote and being recognised as equal citizens in this country, they are still fighting to educate and inform people about how they live and are urging us to take account of the impact of this legislation, how it will affect them and the consequences it will have. This legislation is ill conceived and ill informed. It takes no account of the views of Indigenous people and assumes that they all need some form of intervention. They do not.