Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

My position is that I will support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 in this second reading debate, but I will not be able to do so in the third reading stage. Every bill that comes before the Senate is important. Every government initiative has the potential to shape this nation’s future, for better or for worse. This bill is no different.

I was touched by the comments made by Senator Ludlum is his very fine first speech yesterday. I agree that the Prime Minister’s apology was an important step in this nation’s progress and the moral thing to do. His views inform my comments on this bill at the second reading stage. Schedule 1 of this bill intends to ban R18+ pay TV services to Indigenous communities that request a ban. Given the link between pornography, sexual abuse and violence reported in the Little children are sacred report, the government is saying that this is a positive step in relation to community concerns. However, as I understand the coalition’s position, including the contribution made by Senator Bernardi, this winds back the ban on pornography in Indigenous communities which currently exists. That is something that I ask the government to provide further information on—if it was a ban supported by the government when in opposition last year when this legislation went through both houses of parliament.

Schedule 2 is therefore required to allow the transportation of R18+ rated materials through communities to destinations beyond communities. Some would see this as a sensible response to avoid unintended consequences in relation to the transportation of these materials where it would not otherwise be legal, but I note the comments and views of Senator Bernardi and others on the coalition side that it would make it virtually unenforceable. That is something that needs to be explored in the committee stage of the bill.

Schedule 4 also has a pragmatic approach as it defines certain roadhouses as community stores to enable people to use their managed income for purchases. If the roadhouse is the only store for miles around, it makes sense that people should be able to use it for food and clothing purchases. But some aspects of this bill are more complex than others. Some aspects of bills are incredibly socially complex. Some bills are about the rights of all Australians and they need to be understood on social, cultural and economic levels and not just on the political level. They cannot be reduced to well-spun media lines or politicised into ‘that is this party’s policy’ or ‘this was the last party’s policy’.

One such complex matter can be found in schedule 3 of this bill in relation to the reintroduction of the permit system. I will not go into the intricacies of explaining the legislative and regulatory arrangements at the current time, as other senators have addressed this in their speeches. I want, rather, to step back and look at the big picture. I want to look at this from a perspective that is not confined to this chamber. Every senator will agree that there are serious problems within many Indigenous communities. These include health, housing, welfare, crime, violence, child abuse, economic viability, accountable leadership, community sustainability and many others. Some say that responsibility for this must be located in the cultural shock that resulted with the arrival of white Europeans over 200 years ago. Some say that responsibility for this must be found in the cultural clash in subsequent decades between the new arrivals and the traditional owners of the land. Some say that responsibility must be accepted by governments and leaders of all political and religious persuasions who caused harm in their efforts to help. Some say that responsibility must be accepted by generations of Australians who have prospered from this land and have found it easier to turn a blind eye to the tragic situations that were unfolding. And now it is time for some responsibility to be taken by this chamber.

I have listened to the government’s arguments that this is what local communities want to help them protect themselves, and I recognise the hard work of many in Indigenous communities to build a better future. I also note, however, the number of respected leaders, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have raised concerns about the dysfunction and corruption within the leadership in some Indigenous communities. I also note the concerns of Noel Pearson, a man that I have great respect for, with the Cape York leadership council, about the need to break the nexus between welfare and dependency in Indigenous communities. I have also listened to the arguments of passionate advocates, such as Senator Scullion, that we must not create closed communities by closing off the single gazetted road that can be the economic lifeline in these communities. He also argues strongly that wrongdoing should not be hidden away behind a permit system. That said, I also note the minister’s efforts to respond to these concerns by allowing exemptions to permits for journalists, local government representatives and emergency workers.

As a state member of parliament I moved unsuccessfully to allow for journalists to have access on the APY lands. That was defeated. The government opposed it and those amendments were not successful. I tried on more than one occasion to do so because I believe that if there is a problem the best way to get a result and to rectify that problem is to shine a light on it. To shine a light on it is to put a focus on it and I believe that some of the work that has been done on the APY lands in my home state is as a direct result of media exposure. I have also spoken to journalists who have expressed their frustration about being able to get to the lands in a timely manner in such a way that the situation there was not sanitised for the media when the local community, or some of the leaders of that community, knew that the media was coming.

I have also listened to the concerns about treating Indigenous Australians as though they and their rights are different from other Australians. I note the issues raised in the Senate committee report about the application of the Racial Discrimination Act in this case, and the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities in the development and implementation of this permit model. These are huge issues that stretch beyond this parliament, beyond this sitting, beyond this week.

This is the start of week 3 of my first term—maybe my last term—in the Senate. In that time, and working with my two Canberra staff, we have read all bills, explanatory memoranda, Bills Digests, committee reports and public submissions before this house, as well as attended all the whips meetings and over 40 briefings in 11 sitting days. That is before we start to respond to the national and my local media and constituent issues. That is the responsibility of an Independent senator, and I and my staff embrace it enthusiastically. I also note the minister’s office’s cooperation and its willingness to provide briefings, but to be even-handed in my considerations I cannot just rely on the government’s view. While governments have departments, and oppositions can share the load across many members and senators I, with my two incredibly hardworking staff, have to cover all that comes before this house. The easy option would be to attend fewer briefings, to do less research and to vote on a superficial understanding, but that is not my style. I was sent here to do a job, and to do it thoroughly, and that is what I intend to do.

I have jokingly said in the media that currently my and my staff’s sleep needs are being outsourced to Mumbai. But the point I make is serious. This speech was started at five o’clock this morning; I was involved in a briefing with the minister at 9 am and with subsequent briefings with the coalition—with Senators Bernardi and Scullion—earlier today. I want to do my work diligently so that we are across this and other bills before us. If I am to take an evidence based and responsible approach to exceedingly complex and important legislation such as this, I need the human and time resources to do so. And on this occasion I need more time—time to consult widely, to research rigorously, and to legislate responsibly. That said, if the government wishes to proceed to the second reading stage, I will support it. However, if the government wishes to commence the committee stage today or tomorrow and, subject to the work that needs to be done to deal with this responsibly, even next week, I will oppose the bill at the third reading stage as I do not believe that I have the resources at my disposal to develop the deep understanding that is required to ascertain unintended consequences and to address amendments. I am not afraid of hard work. I am willing to work around the clock, and my staff join me in that willingness. But, ultimately, I am not here to make rushed decisions; I am here to make the right decisions. I support the second reading of this bill.