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

I would like to encapsulate and pull it back to the amendment before the chamber, which is to remove that part of the legislation that empowers the government to acquire rights, titles and interests in Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. Almost all of the questions that have been put to the minister have been relevant to that, because the reason that the government is seeking this power to take control of Aboriginal land is because it says it needs to do so to put in place housing and infrastructure. I did not intervene, but I think both Senator Evans’s and Senator Scullion’s contributions created the inference that the Democrats do not see any link between child abuse and poor infrastructure and housing. I presume that was unintended but it is still very frustrating to be so grievously misrepresented. As much as anybody in this place, the Democrats have pointed to the need to significantly and substantially improve housing and other infrastructure in Aboriginal communities both inside and outside the Territory for a whole range of reasons—one of which is that it would improve child safety and child protection.

What we are disputing is the need for the government to take complete and total control of the land for five years in order to do that. There has been no documented evidence to demonstrate that that is needed. There have been assertions, and I am not in any way suggesting that those assertions are dishonest, but there has been no evidence. There has been evidence provided to the contrary. I accept Senator Scullion talking about normalisation, but I am not quite sure how far you would want to go with the parallels of having the suburbs of Canberra replicated in every aspect in the Territory or anywhere else. But there is a general principle—which I am sure that he is trying to apply when making that comparison—that people have the same rights to services, security, safety and opportunity as they do in city areas. That is a principle that the Democrats support and have long advocated.

But there has been no attempt to demonstrate why it is necessary to take these sorts of very extreme measures in order to achieve that. If there was any link then we would be able to point to all of the Aboriginal communities outside of the Territory that are not under the land rights act and do not have a permit system in place which would have all of this housing, infrastructure, security of services and safety that the minister says will flow from this measure. The simple fact is that there is no evidence to demonstrate that those communities have that in a better way than the communities whose land is going to be taken over by this measure. That is what this is about, from the Democrats’ point of view. We really need to try to keep this debate as honest as possible, because this misrepresentation, where people are suggesting that you do not need to improve housing or infrastructure, is ludicrous. Of course you do and we should be doing it even apart from the link with the issue of child abuse. We should be doing it anyway because of the basic issue of all Australians having equality of opportunity and equality of access to safety, security and services regardless of the extra, very important, imperative of child abuse and child protection. It is important to pull the issue back to that.

I make one more comment. There has been—appropriately, I believe, for this issue—some focus on what is being proposed and what is being done in terms of extra resourcing for housing. The minister has understandably pointed to the $1.6 billion of funding in the federal budget, spread out over a number of years. I find it interesting that the government can spread out over a number of years measures such as remote area housing funding and all the other measures in the budget but when it comes to this particular measure they will give us costing and money until 30 June. There are no forward estimates at all. I make that comment in passing.

On the key point of housing, when the budget was put out the Democrats welcomed the extra resourcing for housing but concerns were expressed—which remain—that, firstly, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, partly. You are taking resources away from Indigenous housing in urban centres where there are also significant, different types of need and perhaps not as extreme but still a need to put resources into Indigenous communities in more remote areas. The second thing the government is doing is once again tying it to its ideological agenda, that all of this money can only be applied in circumstances where the housing is either state housing or provided via this quasi ownership under 99-year lease or other types of arrangements. Again, I would say I am not opposed to having some housing provided through public housing. I am not opposed to some housing being provided through 99-year lease arrangements, where appropriate. Indeed, I point to other areas such as the Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council in Far North Queensland, which is willingly exploring this 99-year lease option and doing so in a way where they retain control of the land, rather than handing it over to a government. I hope that their approach will meet the favour of the federal government in terms of the application of some of this funding.

To stick to the territory, we need to ensure that money is provided in a way that gives maximum value. Frankly, the assertions that the government keeps making that providing any sorts of funds to Aboriginal community housing organisations does not provide any value is predominantly ideologically motivated. The evidence and report which the government have put forward to justify refusing to provide funding to Aboriginal community housing organisations is, I think, very thin and very selective. It suits the government’s ideological agenda. It is a classic example of a report that is done to produce the result you want but does not take into account the evidence in the real world and all of the evidence on the ground. The Democrats are concerned about practical results. We are not interested in ideological flourishes or symbolism. There is too much of that from all sides in the debate over Indigenous issues. Symbolism is important and has its place but not when it becomes a determining factor for policy measures where the value for public money being spent and, even more importantly, the benefits for Aboriginal people on the ground are being compromised because of ideological obsessions and the need to squeeze the policy measures through the flavour of the day.

While it is welcome that there is some extra money, there are very serious questions about whether it will be applied in a way that ensures maximum effectiveness. Nonetheless, the opportunity of providing that housing in terms of the economies of scale which Senator Scullion referred to does present a genuine opportunity. Whether that will be the way it happens on the ground I do not know. I think Senator Crossin’s interjection was regarding the cost of housing provided recently at an outstation near Wadeye, which was certainly very expensive in the amount per house. I hope the government’s efficiencies of scale improve dramatically on that one. At this stage there is no extra money being provided in the context of these emergency measures; it is a measure that was previously in place. While it is welcome, there are still question marks over whether it will be provided effectively.

The sole question I would ask of the minister, which I believe is relevant to this section of the bill as well, goes to the point I made earlier about the statement by Noel Pearson that it is absolutely imperative that the provisions relating to the holding of two leases and the subsequent disposition of leases not be within the sole and arbitrary power of the federal government but rather the province of an entity that is comprised of representatives of Indigenous landowners. Is there any scope or intent within the government’s approach that would allow any form of Indigenous representation in regard to the decisions made or the holding of town leases?