Senate debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007; Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007; Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008

In Committee

11:09 am

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

I want to correct a couple of things straightaway that I do not want to let stand. There are other points that I want to raise, but I will let others speak. I totally refute any suggestion that my position is based on a view that there is no link between housing and child abuse. I have stated repeatedly on the record in this place and outside that that is one of the key reasons why there needs to be serious extra investment in housing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not just in the Territory but around the country. That gap in the adequate provision of housing for Indigenous Australians is a key reason and a key factor of why we have so many other problems, whether it is child abuse, health outcomes or other situations.

I was not arguing that there is no link between housing and child abuse. I was, and am, arguing that there is no link between providing that housing and having the measure contained in this legislation of the government taking over the land for five years. At the end of his contribution, Senator Evans asserted that there is a link. If there is a link, I have not seen any evidence of it. There was no evidence provided to the Senate committee inquiry that I saw. The evidence provided to the inquiry from Professor Altman, who has been working on these issues for decades, is of the opposite, if anything. There is clear evidence that there is no link at all between the control of land and provision of housing.

As we all know, there are many parts of the Northern Territory where Aboriginal people are not living on land that is subjected to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and there are many areas outside of the Northern Territory, such as in northern Western Australia, where obviously Aboriginal people are not living on land part of the Northern Territory land rights act. I have not seen any evidence— in fact, I have seen evidence to the contrary—that shows that there is no better situation in the provision of housing in those places than there is in communities that come under the Northern Territory land rights act. I did want to clarify that issue once and for all. I do not like being labelled as having suggested there is no link between providing better housing and reducing the incidence of child abuse. I think there quite clearly is; I just do not see any link between the government taking over control of Aboriginal land for five years and providing the housing.

Senator Evans referred to Noel Pearson and his views about Aboriginal people needing to take ownership. I do not see how you can take ownership of things by having that ownership taken away. You will not get ownership of solutions by taking away control nor by taking away ownership of the land. It was Noel Pearson who described the land related measures of this legislation as ‘clumsy and ideological’. They are terms I agree with, which is why I am using them. As Indigenous people regularly remind me, there are many Indigenous people, other than Noel Pearson, who have views that we need to take into account. There are also many people in the Territory who say that Noel Pearson is not from the Territory and cannot speak for them. He is regularly held up by some in the media and the government as a key Indigenous leader who is giving the tick of approval to what the government is doing. So it is appropriate to point out that he is seen as giving a tick of approval to all this, yet he has called these land related measures clumsy and ideological. As recently as last Saturday Noel Pearson said:

It is absolutely imperative—

which is, I think, reasonably strong and clear terminology—

that the provisions relating to the holding of town leases and the subsequent disposition of leases not be within the sole and arbitrary power of the federal Government. Rather, this should be the province of an entity that is comprised of representatives of indigenous landowners.

I would love to hear from the minister whether or not they are taking heed of that call from Mr Pearson that this absolutely imperative measure be part of the government’s approach in regard to the holding of town leases, that it not be totally within the sole and arbitrary power of the federal government but there be some Indigenous representation from landowners involved in that. I cannot see it in this legislation and I would be pleased to hear from the government that they are taking those concerns into account.

Comments

No comments