Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The bill before us, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, is actually what is stated in the title, which is sometimes unusual in this place. It is a consolidation bill which looks at a number of specific issues which have been outlined by some of the previous speakers. It is not a response to the overall NT intervention. It is not a statement about how appalled we feel about the horrors of child abuse—and I hope the debate will not degenerate into some kind of contest about who cares more about child abuse in the Northern Territory and who is tougher and stronger and therefore needs more personal commendation.

The bill itself looks at specific issues, none of which are a surprise. The issues that are in this bill were clearly debated and discussed by this government when the whole process of the Northern Territory intervention was being discussed earlier. When the quite sensitive and, as we know, truncated debate around the whole issue of the Northern Territory intervention happened in this place, a number of issues were raised in the process. I have to underline it again and again, because I have heard so much discussion and I have read the speeches that have occurred in the other chamber. Somehow it all gets down to whether we care effectively about child abuse and what we have to do. The term I think I object to most in the debate around this bill is the term ‘watering down’, as though there is any attempt by this government to water down any process that would be of benefit to families and children anywhere who would be suffering under the evils of child abuse. That needs to be completely negated and not really be part of the overall discussion.

The four core elements of this bill relate to permits, access to pay TV that may contain elements of pornography, provisions for taking pornography across designated areas and also the licensing of roadhouses as community stores. They are the elements as set out.

I do want to concentrate on the issue of permits because as you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, through our Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs hearings that caused the greatest discussion. I think one of the things that continues to impress me is how willingly and openly people come and talk with Senate committees about the things about which they feel strongly. Through the preparation of this committee report we found people who wanted to talk about all the issues around the NT response. They wanted to talk about their experiences, their concerns and their fears for the future but, most particularly, they wanted to talk about the wellbeing of their communities and the protection of their kids. That came forward clearly. I really hope people take the opportunity to look at some of the Hansard evidence and also at some of the detailed submissions that people gave to us with generosity and openness.

The issue of the permits dominated most of the submissions and the evidence that we got, with the possible exception of that from Austar, but I will get to that later. There is a long history around the issue of permits in the Northern Territory. An ongoing matter of concern for me was the fact that there is so much ignorance and lack of real understanding about how they work. We tend to throw terms around with great ease and people in the committee hearings spoke about their knowledge—or, indeed, lack of knowledge—of exactly how the permit system operated.

It was very worthwhile to receive evidence from Professor Altman, who put the whole issue of permits into the context of the history of legislation in the Northern Territory. He talked about the different reviews—of which there have been many—how permits operate and also some of the philosophical differences. It came down to a clear difference that was expressed by the people who lived in, worked in and supported communities in the Northern Territory and by other people. There was a clear difference about what constituted openness and what constituted an effective interrelationship between communities and people who were not resident or working in those communities. The permit system was held dear by many of the communities and the community organisations that came to our committee. A number of submitters talked to us about this, but I will quote from one because I think it is important to quote from the evidence that we were given. The Central Land Council addressed the positives of the permit system stating:

... our overall view is that the permit system is an effective and appropriate tool under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (Land Rights Act) for negotiating third party access to Aboriginal land for miners, pastoralists, developers and visitors.

The CLC added:

... the permit system has not impeded the provision of services.

And:

... is an important policing tool in remote communities.

Senator Bernardi said that there would be people who would speak eloquently about the importance and the process of the permit system. I do not claim to be able to speak eloquently on this topic. What I do claim is that I listened to the people who came to the community affairs committee hearings. Also, having read the evidence of a series of committees over the years about how the permit system operates, it seems to me that it is a protocol. It is in place within the Northern Territory to require people who wish to visit a community’s land to ask permission to do so. There are people who apparently find this to be an unbearable imposition. What we need to work out is how clearly and how easily it works.

At the committee hearings the National Land Council stated that 32,010 permits were granted by land councils and the Northern Territory government during 2005 and 2006. It is a simple process which visitors to the Northern Territory can obtain information about by asking a question: what is the protocol for actually going to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory? What are the processes that you have to follow? It is quite simple. With respect to the protection element, we will hear—the term is probably ‘eloquent arguments’—about why this is too difficult, but the process operates in a straightforward way.

A whole series of provisions have been made by the Northern Territory government whereby people who work in these areas are able to visit without restriction. What we have is an ongoing system which respects the dignity of the people who live there and actually allows people knowledge of the land they are visiting. I know that Senator Siewert has spoken about the way that this works. An interesting argument that I had not heard before I was part of this committee was around the issue of safety. The permit system actually operates to ensure the safety of people travelling through the vast areas of Northern Territory, allowing them to know exactly where they are.

The opposition has had a deeply held view that the permit system is actually the root of all evil in terms of creating closed communities. Then there is this wonderful jump in logic which links the permit system and respect for land and community with child abuse. This argument rolls off the tongue with such ease but is actually so damning and so condemning. In fact, there was not a skerrick of evidence put before our committee that demonstrated a direct link between child abuse and criminal activity and the permit system. It is way too easy to make simplistic statements and then not have to justify them.

There was evidence, and it is in the committee report, from the Northern Territory Police Association, who said that they actually worked effectively with the permit system and communities as a way of having some security with respect to who was moving around the area. No-one claims that it is a single way to stop all crime and no-one at any time has claimed that the permit system stops child abuse. That would be an impossible argument to maintain just as it is an impossible argument to maintain that having a permit arrangement, which is open and transparent, does in any way encourage or enable crime or child abuse to happen.

As we all know, much of the activity that was created was stimulated by the Little children are sacred report. I think—in a good way, in a sense—it actually forced the confrontation of what was happening in the Northern Territory by the local community and across our country. This is a wonderful report. It is a shocking report; although that does not mean that people were not previously aware that there were problems because, as Senator Siewert has said, there have been many reviews and reports over the years that have pointed out the evils that have occurred in a number of communities, amongst them those in the Northern Territory. Sometimes we get way too focused on the Northern Territory, as though the only place in the world where there has ever been child abuse has been in remote localities in the Northern Territory. That is not true. As my friend Jackie Huggins continues to state in public arenas, the issue of child abuse is not an Indigenous issue.

However, the Little children are sacred report had a series of strong recommendations about what must occur in the Northern Territory to provide effective education, health and child safety for all people and all children in the areas, noting that there have been cases which we need to confront and respond to. At no stage in that whole quite detailed report was there any argument about permits. The Little children are sacred report—and it probably would be useful to wave it around a bit but it is a bit heavy, so I cannot do that—which should be essential reading for anybody who is a part of this discussion, does not say, did not actually argue, that there was any need to change the existing permit system in the Northern Territory.

But, amongst all the other processes that happened when the previous government brought in the legislation, this was automatically linked in as though, to the world, this was a message that if you change the permit system that would prove that you would be able to end child abuse. We argued that that was not true during the debate around the original legislation. We continued to argue that and now we are responding by saying we are going to remove the restrictions on the permit system that were brought in by the previous government, but we are going to work with the communities, with the Northern Territory government and with any other interested person to ensure that the openness and transparency, which is important, is maintained.

So the arguments about how it works and any confusion that there would be will be addressed. Certainly, I know the minister has had ongoing discussions with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance about the role of journalism and also with other areas about exactly how that would work. I have spent a considerable amount of this short process talking about my concern around the permit system. But this debate around the issue of permits has been, I think, poorly handled. It is important that it, as a tool, is identified and not damned so easily because, as I restate, there is no evidence to say that the permit system by itself has any role in the process that we are talking about.

In terms of the evidence that we had, it would be hard for me to talk about this without quoting Mr Tilmouth from the Tangentyere Council because he has given so much evidence in support of various committees that we have had. But I will quote what he has said, and it is a statement about those people who claim that there is a closure of the process:

Aboriginal people’s lives are not as private as yours or mine. We are open to scrutiny every day of the week. When anyone wants to orchestrate media against us, that will happen. We are under surveillance in every walk of life.

I think that was quite a painful response to the kinds of arguments that we heard and the way that people tried to focus that there was innate evil somehow and that Aboriginal people were conspiring to close out other people’s interest in their ways. My own experience is that when we have asked to visit any particular community there has been an openness and a welcome that makes us very proud of being able to work effectively with people who are a part of our democratic system.

I do want to talk a little bit about the process around pornography because there was considerable mention in the Little children are sacred report about the problems of pornography and perhaps the behaviours that are linked with that. There is an ongoing international issue about the linkages with pornography and the behaviours that are learned from it. Nonetheless, in terms of the Little children are sacred report, it was identified as an issue.

This government has worked very strongly with industry, and in particular with AUSTAR, who provides the pay TV service to the Northern Territory, to look at the process of access to what is called pornography—in this case, it must be remembered that what we are talking about is R-rated material. There has been no argument about the X-rated elements of pornography. That is banned; it has been under the previous legislation and it continues to be banned under this legislation. So the argument of watering down does not work in that way. But in terms of R-rated material that is only available through the pay TV process, there has been work with industry, and I know Senator Siewert spoke about that detailed process. It was brought up that there were very few homes in remote Aboriginal communities that have access to pay TV, but there are some. That was identified by industry.

The provisions in this act effectively put into place a process where community, government and industry can work together to come up with a solution for their areas. It links all parts of the process so that, if there is a genuine desire from the community caused by any reason such as fear about what is going on or worry about pornography coming into their area, there can be designated exclusion from those areas and a ban would happen.

In terms of what we hope for in future interaction and how we continue to work effectively together to ensure that the processes identified in reports such as Little children are sacred, it would seem to me that this process, which fits in with the Racial Discrimination Act very well, actually seems to be bit of a model for the future because it engages all those who are stakeholders in coming up with a solution. So we think that this is a very strong movement in trying to engage with community and industry to determine what is effective for them. Rather than blanket banning, which was in the previous legislation, we are saying that this is a strengthening of the process because it allows people to take ownership themselves of what is happening in communities. Fears were put forward by Senator Bernardi about whether people would have the encouragement or the strength to raise an issue; this is a different issue. This goes back to exactly how we effectively work in the communities to make people strong and aware and to give them the support they need to identify the issues themselves and to come forward.

There are a whole range of other issues within the NT response which looks at how we can improve child support services, child welfare services and also policing. But it is not peculiar to this one element of how pay TV access occurs. Once again, it is an attempt to say that my response is somehow stronger than yours. I do not agree with that methodology. The government’s response identifies the issue, responds to the Little children are sacred report and comes up with a solution that meets the requirements.

The roadhouses, as we have heard, are being licensed under the same process as community stores. There is a very detailed process under the NT legislation that looks at how this licensing is done. This actually widens the provisions to allow roadhouses to have that amenity for local communities, and we support that. Of course we support it—we are putting forward the legislation. The other element is the policing element dealing with people travelling through an area carrying material that is pornographic or illegal in some way. There is no disagreement with those processes.

However, I think it is very important to respond to a little of what Senator Siewert was saying about the review, about which this government has a very strong view. We said that we were in support of elements of the NT response legislation when it came in but that we had a whole range of concerns that we put forward in arguments. We made a commitment to a full review into the situation and a 12-month process. You and I know that that is underway and that at the end of this month we are expecting a review. I understand clearly the concerns that were raised by Senator Siewert. When you say that you will be operating an effective review, there is an expectation from all parties that the review will be open and will respond to the issues raised during that process. We will have that review at the end of the month, and I think there is a true challenge to everyone in this place, as well as to all citizens of the Northern Territory, who are the subject of this process, to closely examine that review and effectively respond to any recommendations and processes that emerge from it. That will be an important element of what is an ongoing response to the issues that were identified.

All governments needed to investigate what was happening in areas where concerns had been raised about child abuse. That is the job of effective government. What we need to understand is that it is not a short, quick-fix process. It will not be a single response that will solve these problems. A long-term, strategic, resourced process will have to be put in place at all levels of government and in the communities themselves to respond to the Little children are sacred report. The bill in front of us today looks at four key elements. It is a consolidation of the original legislation and is part, I believe, of an ongoing response to a very significant problem.