Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Bartlett has spoken about a suite of issues with regard to these bills. But the notion that the government have created such anguish, the notion that we have created an extra burden upon these communities is a false one, because the fact is that, two or three days after the intervention occurred in the communities, the communities themselves were very happy with that. They were very calm. The notion that people would be fleeing into the sand dunes was as a result of some very mischievous misinformation. It was a tragedy that people brought that into the communities. Tragically, the principal resisters in the communities have been some of the white advisers. They are the sort of people who do not want change, for whatever reason.

Communities such as Elliott have rung up and said: ‘We’re excluded from this process and we want to be involved. Please let us also be involved. It is so important that we do not want to be seen to be left out of this opportunity.’ The notion that we have created anguish does not seem to me to reflect what is happening in the community. We have heard a number of Indigenous people, not just Noel Pearson but people like Warren Mundine, who have spoken very strongly about this legislation and have focused on the positive aspects of it and what we intend to achieve.

We have spoken of the recommendations in the Little children are sacred report, and I hope I will not be regarded as being flippant in making the throwaway line that these recommendations were not important. The substance of the report was that there was serial child abuse, if you like, which was happening throughout these communities and it was largely underreported. I do not think anybody is questioning that part of the report. They acknowledged that something has to be done. You talk about the second recommendation, Senator, where it says that we have to go out and consult. I can recall travelling with the minister for more than 14 months. There were six visits to Wadeye and four to Galiwinku—and the list goes on. We were not just having tea at all those places; we were talking to the community at all levels to find out how we could make the lives of those Indigenous people, particularly living in those communities, better across a whole suite of issues.

I find it very difficult to say what sort of questions we should have been asking. Perhaps we should have consulted and said, ‘There is child abuse happening in the communities,’ and I am sure they would have said, ‘Yes, we want that to stop.’ Would we have said, ‘Do you want alcohol to keep coming into the communities?’ Depending on who you asked, they possibly would have said, ‘We’d still like to have our alcohol.’ We could have said: ‘What about the provision of the infrastructure? We’re unable to do it.’ In Wadeye we did 14 months of discussion simply to provide infrastructure so that, when somebody pushed the button on top of the porcelain, that particular day’s breakfast went away. Everybody takes it for granted: push the button, it goes away; it is not part of your family forever, it is not part of the household. Of course, we should not be taking that for granted because when infrastructure is ageing and has not been maintained then you need to fix it, but after 14 months of negotiating and consultation we cannot get to a basic agreement to be able to repair this infrastructure.

In terms of this emergency, we know it is absolutely essential that we ensure there is a clear path so that we can do it swiftly. In fact, we are saying that we think we will be able to repair the infrastructure in the community in five years, and then this will just lapse automatically—it has a sunset clause. There is no mischief in that. It is simply the practical application of something we found out throughout our consultation process and through trying it the other way, the way of, ‘We’ll keep spending; we’ll keep talking,’ when we could not even put in basic infrastructure that way. Part of the challenge has been putting in the governance arrangements and the time that that takes. If we are fair dinkum about an emergency response we need to ensure that we have the capacity to make a difference now, not to simply be saying, ‘Well, what we’re going to do is try to achieve just the basic levels of amenity that we all take for granted.’ We have said that we will achieve this. While it is important that we listen and consult widely, we have already done that. In terms of the report, if you look at this whole suite of recommendations I think you will see that they are behind us.

The Northern Territory government is to be commended and we are working very closely with them in this. Yes, we have had our differences about things and about the speed at which things are going, but fundamentally we are working with the Northern Territory government. I have to say that the senator has made some good points. It is extremely complex legislation and in many ways it is unique. It is very rare that we would have legislation that says: we will apply this legislation, but if the Northern Territory applies legislation then ours will lapse. It is very complicated, and it is not the normal way we would provide legislation. We would prefer most of the legislation with regard to the alcohol, for example, to be a provision of the Northern Territory legislation. That would make sense, and that is the way that would be. But in the interim, to show that this is something that needs to be done, we have rolled it out in this fashion. We have worked very closely with the Northern Territory government so that if they are prepared—and we believe they are in most of the fundamentals—they will be putting in legislation that reflects these things and then our legislation will lapse.

For all those reasons, yes, the legislation is complex, but this is necessary. Senator, the way you have to see this is that we need to get something done in our own lunchtime. For years and years, part of our failure has been that we have said: ‘We’ll think about it. We’ll take time.’ Clearly, that is not working. It has not worked. I am delighted to say that, in the communities where the intervention has moved in, people are in there helping other people in a practical way. That is all we are doing. I have heard the notion repeated in this place and in the media about the involvement of the Defence Force bringing guns and people in uniform. The only reason the Defence Force are in there is that they know the country—it is NORFORCE—and we needed some people who had licences to drive buses and trucks and the infrastructure to make it easier for people to get around. That was what that was about. Senator, you are quite right when you say people do get a bit anguished, but they will not be anguished when they actually understand what we are doing.

I have mentioned in my response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report that principally we accept the recommendations in the report and we will be putting in a communications strategy. It is important that people understand exactly what our terminologies are and exactly what we as an Australian community are intending by these things. That is why we will be continuing to invest in those things. There will be a more comprehensive response to the report. In the first line of my response I said we will be supporting either in full or in part all of the recommendations in the report. The vast majority of the recommendations in the report are, I think, of most significance. But we will be properly responding to this report, and the minister is considering that response at the moment. But, again, with regard to the anguish on the ground, when people have learned the details they have welcomed it.