Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this motion. We will be moving a broader amendment that covers more than just part 4, but we do oppose part 4 so we will be supporting the Democrats motion as well. We do not accept the argument that there is a need to take away people’s land in order to deal with child abuse. I do not accept the argument that Labor put forward either. They seem to be supporting the government’s argument that you need to take away people’s land in order to provide housing and in order to deal with child abuse. I do, like Senator Bartlett just said, accept the argument that we absolutely need to provide safe, adequate housing to Aboriginal communities. We have been repeatedly on the record, both in this place and elsewhere, arguing that very strongly. We do not accept the argument that the government needs to take over townships and town leases in order to provide that housing.

We do not accept the argument that the government have to take on all these extraordinary powers. They are not just taking these leases and these townships in order to provide housing, it seems to us, because they are taking on all sorts of other powers under these laws, such as the minister’s capacity to terminate any rights, titles or other interests in the land at any time. The government can sublease or license their interest in the land. Last night we heard arguments being put forward that we need to open up these townships as well as get rid of the permit system et cetera to allow business and tourism to come in. It seems to me, therefore, that this will not be just about housing. This is about overriding communities’ control and decision making over their land in order to facilitate businesses and other entities building and operating in those townships.

Also during this debate over the last number of hours, particularly last night and this morning, the argument has been made that there has been lots of consultation and that the government have been trying to get this organised for 14 months. I am presuming that as part of that argument the government and the minister were referring to the discussions that have been held over the town camps in Alice Springs. To me that argument absolutely underlines the ideological nature of the government’s approach: ‘We will do this our way, and that is it.’ The minister knows full well that there were ongoing negotiations there and the community did not accept the government’s argument that they had to hand over the leases. They had fought hard for control of those town leases, which they had finally won. They were not prepared to hand them over, but they were prepared to compromise. As little as three or four weeks ago, as I understand it, they came back with another proposal that did not require them to hand over their leases. They came up with a compromise position. But even then the government were not prepared to accept that. If the government are genuine about providing houses, the position that Tangentyere Council and the communities there were willing to put up would have facilitated houses being built, but it did not meet the government’s ideological agenda, which is absolute control. That is the point here. It is not just about providing houses; it is about taking minutiae control.

I have a number of questions that I would like clarified. I know that Senator Evans and Senator Bartlett have also said that they have a number of questions they would like clarified. The depth of these changes is of such an extent that the government can, as I alluded to earlier, exclude and refuse to allow people to live on or access the land—including, as I understand it, traditional owners. I want to know: will the government be excluding traditional owners from living on and accessing the land? People want a cast-iron guarantee about this. It is all right continuing to quote Noel Pearson—and I think Warren Mundine was thrown in last night—but other Aboriginal people, including the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory, have said very clearly that they do not support these amendments. These are the people whose land we are talking about. They do not support these amendments. Of course they support government support and the injection of funding by government into housing. They have been crying out for housing for years—$2.3 billion has been asked for for years for investment in housing.

It is not right for the government to say that they need to take these extraordinary powers in order to provide housing. I am disappointed that the ALP have bought that argument when just last year they were opposing the government’s changes to the land rights act. I know it was slightly different, because that was about 99-year leases, but the concept was still the same. The government’s argument was that we need to have these leases because we need to provide private housing in order to deal with the housing crisis and promote economic development. There is not the evidence to suggest that that in fact happens when you provide private housing. There is not the evidence to suggest that in order to provide housing you have to provide private housing. There is not the evidence to suggest that you need these extraordinary powers in order to provide housing and infrastructure. And there certainly is not the evidence to suggest that you have to have the power to terminate any rights, titles or other interests in the land. This is an ideologically driven agenda that will not deliver outcomes on child abuse. It does take away people’s rights, access to and enjoyment of their land and their decision-making capacity in relation to their land. That is why the Greens are opposing this.

I do not want anybody for one minute to say that the Greens are opposing increased housing and proper infrastructure for Aboriginal communities. What we disagree with is the over-the-top manner in which the government are approaching this. They are using this as an excuse to push their ideological agenda. I would like the minister to answer the question about traditional owners and then maybe we will get into some more detailed questions. I have some specific questions about town camps in particular that I would like to address through this ongoing debate.