Senate debates
Thursday, 16 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
Third Reading
10:56 am
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
The Greens are pleased that there is a massive new awakening by government to the needs of Indigenous Australians. After decades of neglect, indifference and failure at state, territory and national levels, these measures bring to the forefront of Australian political concern the need to bring justice in the administration of taxpayers’ money and the allocation of resources to First Australians. We are particularly behind moves in this legislation to bring the much-needed health care, education, housing and security to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory that have been so wanting for so long. My question a moment ago about underspending in last year’s budget—and if it is not $560 million it is an enormous amount of money—shows how rapidly the failure of government can, for right or wrong reasons, turn into a much more positive outcome.
The Greens will not be supporting this legislation, because the representations to us from Indigenous Australians are that they are being left out of the consultation and presentation of this legislation. That of itself ought to have changed. The government should have adopted not just the report into the plight of children in Indigenous communities and its findings but also the recommendations. It should have consulted with Indigenous people. It should have taken into account their pivotal role in determining their future.
The change that has occurred here of course is that the resources and the wherewithal are being supplied. But the harm from setting Indigenous people aside—not considering them, not consulting them and not intending to do so in the way that they want—will be ongoing. We also deplore the unnecessary racism in the way in which this legislation has been presented to this national parliament. Setting aside the Racial Discrimination Act was not necessary; but it has been set aside, and comprehensively, in breach of international and domestic mores. That debate has been had. We have opposed that. These acts all set aside the Racial Discrimination Act so that the imposition of the government’s will, through appointed people in communities who have total control over what Indigenous people do, in pursuit of the aims of this legislation is going to cause ongoing harm.
In this brief presentation I cannot go beyond one of the racist factors that are so salient here—that is, the use of the coercive powers of the Australian Crime Commission to invade the community and domestic rights of Indigenous people but not non-Indigenous people. In plain language, the government has devised those coercive powers for international drug traffickers, white-slavers and triads. Now, for the first time, they will be used in these communities in Australia. This is unnecessary because good policing, which has been denied to these communities, would do this job. This particular racist approach says: ‘If you’re black and involved in crimes of violence or abuse then the coercive and intrusive powers of the Australian Crime Commission may be used against you, whether you are in Redfern, Brisbane, Perth, Launceston or indeed the Northern Territory. But if you’re white and involved in the abuse of children or violence against others then the ACC cannot be used against you.’ That is the most flagrantly racist approach, and it is so unnecessary.
It is heartening, however, that in the first 850 medical check-ups of children it has been discovered that they are suffering from a range of maladies which can now be fixed because the resources have been put there. The minister’s initial asseveration that check-ups were for discovering child sexual abuse has been sensibly put aside, because that would have been an illegal approach—which ought to have been known by the government at the outset. No sexual abuse of children has been discovered in these first 850 check-ups. What is so good about this is that those children who have been found to have high levels of dental, skin, ear, nose or throat infections or problems can now be fixed up early and have a chance to have the same life expectancy that the rest of us have.
We Greens will continue, as we have done over the last 10 years in this place, to fight for a fair go for Indigenous Australians. This legislation moves towards giving the resources that are required here, but what it does not do is give rights to Indigenous Australians. It provides extraordinary government powers and for government imposed overseers in communities throughout the Northern Territory to supervise the government’s intentions in a way that no non-Indigenous community would accept outside overseas countries which have autocracies or worse. I put on the record here today that the government, through the minister, has made this commitment, and I quote the minister:
... what is our plan? At the end of five years these communities should enjoy the same level of law and order, the same level of housing and the same level of amenity that the rest of Australia enjoys. Will the land be given back at the end of that period ... Absolutely.
That is a commitment from the Howard government that we Greens will be pursuing right through the next five years. I give this other commitment. We will also be pursuing, because you cannot divorce these things, the right of Indigenous Australians to run their affairs; the right of Indigenous Australians to be decisive about where their lives are going and where their communities are going; and the right of Indigenous Australians to their culture—to their 60,000-plus years of heritage in this country, to their bond with the land which this legislation threatens so palpably, and to their beliefs, their culture and their aspirations—which is an important thing which has been left completely off the agenda in this legislation. These are things which this legislation undercuts because it does not take them into account. Surely we must also pursue their right to their language. This government has defunded language programs for Indigenous Australians at the same time as this legislation is before this parliament. That must be rectified because there can be no greater assault on people’s culture and wellbeing than to deny them their language and turn a living language into a dying or extinct language. We should not be allowing that to happen in Australia in 2007.
There is a plurality of views in this place. The opposition supports the government in this legislation; we oppose it. It is not because we opposed the funding and the measures for better care for Indigenous Australians, as I have said, but because it need not have been put in this way. It need not have sidelined Indigenous consultation. It need not have been after 10 years of inaction. However, we will be supporting the good outcomes while tackling this government and its discriminatory attitude to Indigenous Australians in the months and years ahead. We take that charge seriously. If a Rudd government is elected in November, we will be no less diligent in doing the best we can in a parliament which has no Aboriginal voice to do, through the Aboriginal community, as the message stick presented to this Senate said: “Sit down and talk with us. Take us into account. Ensure you listen, when dealing with Indigenous issues, to the Indigenous people and do not dispossess us again. After 200-plus years, do not dispossess us again.’ And there is too much dispossession in this legislation which was unnecessary.
It was a difficult decision whether to support or not support this legislation. In a government dominated Senate and with opposition support, the outcome will not be different. Call it symbolic if you will, but we strongly support the notion that, if we are going to debate issues this important to the First Australians, they should be taken into account all the way down the line. They have been dispossessed of their right to a voice in this process over the last two months or so. Our objection to that is very deep and very great and it will not go away.
No comments