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

Perhaps I will try to deal with Senator Siewert’s questions first. You are quite right, Senator Siewert, the laws that we are bringing in here are discriminatory. But they do not discriminate against people; they simply discriminate in a way that treats one class of people differently from another. This is a targeted, emergency response in an Indigenous community. Senator Evans reflects that this is a fundamental part of what we want to do. Throughout this morning and yesterday we have accepted that we are moving forward. If there are impediments to our providing the levels of safety that we have said we would provide through this suite of initiatives, we need to remove that impediment. That is exactly what we have done. If we do not exempt some of these areas from the Racial Discrimination Act, they will be unlawful and they will not be able to proceed. That may suit the particular purpose of the Greens—that is your business—but it does not suit our purpose. That is why we promote it. We want to put these provisions in place because it is only this sort of suite of issues that will make any difference in these communities.

It is interesting that you are going to support Senator Evans’s amendment, which is an interesting amendment in that it is very close to our amendment; it is almost identical. There are two parts to the opposition’s amendment. The first part, which Senator Evans talks about, is quite right. That says that measures are consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act. So they have not declared it. They just said that they think they are consistent, so there is some risk involved in that. But, to be frank, Senator Evans, to go on about the sanctity of the Racial Discrimination Act and its sending the wrong signal is inconsistent with the second part of your amendment, which in effect excludes other parts from the act. I am not saying that you cannot have it both ways. I am very grateful for your very practical approach and for your support generally with the bill. But we are not going to support your amendment—and it is a good amendment; it is almost parallel to ours. It is unclear to us why you have chosen to deem the legislation as complying with part 2 rather than simply excluding it, as you have with the second part of your amendment. What I believe—and the advice I have been given is quite clear—is that it is just a high level of risk.

We are not looking at playing around the edges. The second part of yours does exclude it. The legislation reflects that we are not deeming it consistent; we are just simply excluding it. So there is no risk to these provisions going ahead. These are important provisions and I know that you accept that. I know that in all your deliveries here today, Senator Evans, you have ensured that there are no impediments to providing the levels of safety in these communities that we are going to provide. If that is the case, I would ask you look very carefully at my submission because the second part of your amendment does exclude it from the Racial Discrimination Act. I understand; it is very important to send the right signals. It is unfortunate that there are those in this place who interpret this as a discriminatory act and that somehow we are discriminating against them, instead of saying, ‘This is something we’re doing on behalf of Aboriginal people, particularly in these communities, and it’s something that should be supported. We contend that your amendment, whilst well meant, has no effect and therefore will not be supported.