Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to say a few things in summing up the debate about these five bills before us today. I know it has been a long week for people. For some people, it has been a long fortnight. For some of us, it has been a long couple of months. It is going to get even longer still once we leave this place and hit the bush first thing in the morning. I think this presents an opportunity for everybody to start to turn things around. I outlined on Tuesday night what I feel about this legislation. My feelings certainly have not changed. I have major reservations about how this legislation is going to be implemented and the implications of it for some Indigenous people. I concur with what Senator Bartlett has said. I think that for this government to hide behind the major recommendations in the Little children are sacred report, to not attempt to engage Indigenous people in this major change and to not wait until the Northern Territory government have released their response to this report—which I understand they will do next Tuesday—has been to act in haste and in some ways has meant that people have had the impression that this whole exercise has been politicised.

We are here to appropriate $587 million. Some of us are wondering if that money is the underspend from last year and, if so, whether we are just spending underspent money rather than new money—but let us not go there at this time of the debate. If we are looking at quite a large amount of money for 70 communities in the Northern Territory, then let us make sure that it is spent properly and appropriately. I noticed yesterday that ABC news had the headline: ‘Task force identifies policing, housing needs for NT communities.’ I looked at that and thought: ‘Oh, yeah? Like some of us didn’t know that 20 years ago?’ I have been to all of the 70 communities that have been identified in this legislation and I have known for decades that all those communities wanted more housing, policing where it was needed, youth programs and family support programs. I am not sure why we are seeking to reinvent the wheel. It might have come as a surprise to some people who read the newspaper article claiming that Major General Chalmers has now released one of his further reports after visiting 66 communities. The article said:

He says they have found common issues across the Territory including the need for more policing, youth activities and housing improvements.

Gee, that is not new. For those of us who live and work with these people, who call them friends and, in some instances, family, this is nothing new. If you picked up the phone and made 70 phone calls you would find that CEOs of most of those community councils would have audit information and be able to tell you exactly which houses need repairs or demolishing. Let us hope that we are not going to waste money by reinventing the wheel.

Major General Chalmers went on to say that, at a meeting in Alice Springs, he was disappointed to find that there were people either deliberately or inadvertently spreading some misinformation. I believe that was because there is still a chronic lack of information out there on the ground about what exactly this all means. Some of that can be displaced by a better communication strategy from this government. The sooner that is up and running, the better.

I have raised concerns about the Elliott community not being amongst the 70 communities. I got a response from the minister about that. In the meantime, I have had further correspondence regarding that community from someone who said: ‘I can’t believe that Elliott is not on the list. Of the 45 communities that were visited during the inquiry, Elliott was the worst as far as alcohol and sexual abuse of children were concerned. This was due to its proximity to the highway. Elliott has an incestual abuse history dating back to the 1960s. In recent times it has been the hunting ground of at least two non-Aboriginal paedophiles who abused numerous children.’ The question I was asked by this person was, ‘Was it stupidity or fear of failure that led to this community being excluded?’ If we want to hold up the Little children are sacred report and say that we are doing this to prevent further abuse of children and because we want all kids to be safe, I put to this government that Elliott should be included on this list as soon as possible. I am not sure what other evidence I need to give you to convince you to do this if not by close of business today then first thing on Monday.

The other concern I have is about the stories that are now starting to come out about this intervention. Robinson River is one of the 70 communities. I understand that at Robinson River there are women who have been undertaking a fencing project. They actually know how to fence out there. Senator Nash can probably relate to this. They completed a fencing contract last week, I understand. The Aboriginal corporation out there was planning to purchase materials so that they could continue with other houses around the community. A couple of things have happened that I have heard about. I understand that Territory Housing, which look after the three staff houses for the education department and the health department, are about to bring in an outside, non-Indigenous contractor to erect new fences around the three houses they control. If the federal government has now taken over the running of the Robinson River community, I would urge them to pick up the phone and say to Territory Housing: ‘Stop that. What are you doing?’

If this is an intervention strategy about empowering Indigenous people then can’t you make sure that the Northern Territory government uses people on the ground to do the work? Why is Territory Housing bringing in an outside, non-Indigenous contractor to erect a fence when there are women in the community who can do it and who could be paid for it? If we are going to have an intervention strategy, let us get serious about this and let us start picking up the phone and saying to other governments and other departments, ‘If there are local Indigenous people who can do the job then get them to do it.’

The accountant out there has shown me a disturbing document that has equally bad ramifications. The federal government, through FaCSIA, has a tender document on the government tender website calling for contractors to come in and repair the houses at Robinson River. Looks like our resident Indigenous carpenter and his gang are also about to get the chop. What is going on out there, seven weeks into this intervention, when we have Indigenous fencers and Indigenous carpenters at Robinson River who are capable of repairing houses but we have FaCSIA with a tender on its website calling for contractors to come in and do it?

I would have thought that this would be the start of turning this around. I would have thought that this intervention would stop this stuff happening. I would have thought that people in FaCSIA would be alerted to this and would use some positive discrimination to ensure that, where there were Indigenous people on the ground who could do the job, they would be given the job and encouraged to do it. I would have thought that their capacity to undertake work such as this would be encouraged. Isn’t that what this intervention is about? If that is not what it is about then I think the government will have missed the opportunity that they say is going to turn around the lives of people in this community. So there are a couple of examples already, in the seven weeks, where, unless the government take a very proactive, interventionist role in what is happening in communities, we will not see a significant change; in fact, we will see a significant turnaround.

In the Northern Territory News yesterday concerns came to light about non-Indigenous public servants who think it is a great challenge to get out there in the bush but, once they get out there, find that things are very different. In his column, Barry Doyle writes:

Philosophies and intent aside, there are already whispered reports of problems with the planned logistics of the operation.

He goes on to say:

For instance, some federal public servants who are earmarked to join the incoming team have expressed disquiet about accommodation. The fact that they will be going to some areas where housing is substandard or non-existent for the residents seems not to have registered that it may also apply to them.

Suggestions of tents have not gone down well with some.

That is going to be a fact of life for people who volunteer to get out there and help, and somehow this government is going to need to manage that. It is not easy out bush. There is a significant lack of accommodation. If, as I have seen in the papers, demountables are placed at Imanpa for people to live in, it might be fine for a couple of days or a couple of weeks, but it will be pretty hard going for people if they are going to sustain that over many months. I think that also is a concern that this government will need to monitor.

Even though this legislation releases money to be spent on people, I have concerns about whether the children who need further follow-up will get it. In the Senate inquiry, we heard from Major General Chalmers that the names of those kids who needed additional follow-up had been given to NT Health. People in NT Health tell me that those names have been on a list for 11 months. They stay on that list because NT Health need the additional money and resources to bring specialists and outreach services to town. I have not yet heard from the government that this money is going to be spent in that way. If this money is going to be spent health-checking kids and putting them on a list which just sits there—if kids never get off that list because they are not getting the further operations or other treatment that they need—then this government has missed and wasted this opportunity.

I know that the task force went into Yirrkala sometime in the last week and got short shrift, because one of the problems with this strategy is that it does not recognise good communities. It treats all of the communities the same. It has not sought, first and foremost, to intervene in those communities that need help the most and it has not looked at the way in which it can strengthen existing communities without intervening. Perhaps there needs to be a two-pronged approach to this, but there is not; there is a one-size-fits-all approach. Senator Bartlett is right: that is what you get under this minister. It is his way or no way.

I have heard no mention in the last fortnight of the new Community Schools Partnership agreement that has been signed at Yirrkala between the Yirrkala school and the Northern Territory government. That will see an injection of an additional $5 million from the Northern Territory government over five years, which means that they will get their assistant teacher position allocated to them, even though they are not entitled to it under the staffing formula. It will see two cultural officers and school attendance officers placed at that school, as well as additional resources. In return for that, the school has agreed to attendance targets. It is my understanding that it aims to increase the attendance by 40 per cent over the next three to five years. That is a way in which the Northern Territory government has engaged the Yirrkala community in tackling the nonattendance at that school in a positive way, not in a punitive way by targeting their welfare payments.

It is about engaging parents and the community in being part of the school and realising the value of education, and about getting them involved. I have heard nothing from this government to suggest that that is their philosophy, that they will be seeking to work with the Northern Territory government to roll out 69 more community partnership agreements across the Territory. I have heard no recognition at all from this government that that is a model that they would want to get on board with and duplicate.

Yirrkala is a community that is operating efficiently and effectively. It is a strong community and always has been. I think that the task force going there not knowing that background and not knowing that the partnership had been signed just two weeks before is another flaw in the system as this intervention package is rolled out. There are other communities that are also doing pretty well, like Galiwinku and Maningrida. I think this government needs to say: ‘Perhaps in some of these communities we need to change tack a bit, back off and start to engage people here and recognise that there are some good things happening. We need to seek to build on those rather than destroy them and start from scratch.’

The abolition of CDEP is a very big concern for me, because I do not believe that this government has recognised the strength that exists in Aboriginal CDEP organisations. I have major concerns for the Laynhapuy association and for places like Bowanunga, which I think will struggle to survive after the one year unless there is a recognition from this government that the resources and assets that they have bought as a result of their own business acumen need to be kept with them and enhanced and improved. I have not yet seen this government find a way through the impact the abolition of CDEP will have on organisations and the flow-through that will happen, particularly to outstations. I think that is a gaping hole in this policy of intervention.

I want to reiterate what I said yesterday about the permit system. I gave a number of examples of where I believe that giving the power to traditional owners to issue a permit without having any way in which that permit can be revoked other than by that traditional owner is a fundamental step backwards. I say that only because there have been examples in the Northern Territory where traditional owners and Indigenous people have exploited their ability to provide permits to people; I think the land councils, and even the minister in this case, not having the power to revoke permits so there are some checks and balances over that is a fundamental flaw in the system.

I have not been convinced that all of this package matches the rhetoric of this government. They say that this is about children being safer and happier and about building communities. In some aspects I can see that. If we can limit the amount of alcohol, lift the quality in community stores—and, having been to those 70 communities, I have to say there is some quality to be lifted out there—and change that and turn some of that around, that will be a good thing. But I think there are some fundamental aspects of this policy that the government needs to rethink. I think a sign of the maturity of a government is where a couple of months after they laid down a policy they might say, ‘Maybe we need to revise aspects of this and do it differently.’ If you do not engage Indigenous people in where you want to go in some of these communities, I think it will be a fundamental failure.

In concluding, I want to provide a quote from an Aboriginal person who has identified himself as a ‘concerned Australian’. Senator Scullion will know this person; it is Eddie Cubillo, a long-time Darwin Indigenous man. He has now relocated out of the Territory. He wrote to all of us. He has a law degree and he has kids who are studying at university. He is a very well-educated person. He says in his letter to me:

If there is anything to come out of this ... other than what the Government proposes I would like to make a recommendation ... that an ongoing fully funded public awareness campaign on Indigenous peoples and their issues in this country. This would assist the wider public to have an understanding of Indigenous peoples issues. This would also ensure that in the future that our Indigenous kids aren’t used as political footballs and their rights eroded even further in the process of democracy in this country.