Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to make my contribution to this debate I would like to preface my comments by acknowledging that all people in this chamber want to see a meaningful difference in the lives of Indigenous people, particularly with regard to some of the conditions that young people and children find themselves confronted with. We are all working towards that aim. The coalition obviously initiated the emergency response last year in the Northern Territory and this was supported by the Labor Party—albeit there are some differences between us. However, I am concerned that the government is now intent on watering down the intervention, which I believe will have an adverse impact on the intervention’s effectiveness. Many parts of this bill seek to do exactly that.

When the Little children are sacred report was released it highlighted to all of us in a stark manner the extensive and tragic incidence of abuse and neglect, especially of Aboriginal children in many Indigenous communities. When confronted with this horrific reality, what did the coalition government do? Well, it did not set up myriad reviews and inquiries. It did not um and ah, and sweep this under the carpet, so to speak. It did not shy away from making very bold and decisive decisions—decisions that had to be made. They were tough decisions but we took immediate action to redress what was, and what continues to be, an emergency situation. Anything less would have failed the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory, particularly those who have suffered horrific abuse.

The coalition stepped in, and I am very pleased to say that we did it because we wanted to ensure that the victims or potential victims could be saved from a life of abuse and degradation. Due to the extensive, widespread nature of the abuse and some of the conditions facing some of these individuals and communities in the Northern Territory, there was a need for immediate protection of children. I do not shy away from the fact that there was a requirement for very tough and very strict action. So everything the coalition government put in place through the intervention was to break the cycle of poverty and abuse that has been a part of everyday life for far too many Indigenous people.

This change can only be achieved through tough measures like blanket bans on pornography, by reopening or providing access to parts of communities through a partial rollback of the permit system. I do not believe that this legislation that has been put forward by the now government will be effective in managing the ongoing problems that we have in some Indigenous communities.

While some positives have come out of the intervention so far, I believe and the coalition believes that we should still regard the conditions that are facing too many children as a national emergency. Whilst it has been just over a year since the intervention started, I do not want us to lose sight, and the coalition does not want us to lose sight, of the fact that the urgency of the situation was reflected in the initial measures. As time goes on, it may become easier to become a bit more complacent about the tragedies and the initial shock that we all faced when confronted with the Little children are sacred report that prompted these emergency measures to be put in place. I am concerned that this bill is an example of the government losing sight of the urgency that confronted us and the continuing urgency that is there to save so many children. As Mr Morrison said in the other place:

We have a retreat and a revision from the government, rather than the resolve that is needed to follow through.

I would like to address some of the coalition concerns in regard to the schedules of this bill. Schedule 1 relates to pay TV. It deals with the regulation of pay TV services in regard to pornography. Essentially, this part of the bill allows pay TV porn to continue in these communities. The Little children are sacred report made it clear that exposure to pornography helped to create the environment of sexual abuse of children. This was reflected at a luncheon that I went to recently conducted by an organisation that was dedicated to protecting children from all sorts of abuse. It was sponsored by Minister Macklin—coincidentally the minister responsible for this bill. The title of the lunch and the marketing campaign to protect children was ‘Children See. Children Do.’ We support that. We know that children mimic what they see. If they see an abusive parent, alcohol abuse or regular degradation of people through pornography and sexual violence, they sometimes become subject to it themselves but they also copy. How on the one hand we can advocate the campaign ‘Children See. Children Do.’ and then on the other hand say that it is okay to stream pornography into communities where there is horrific child sexual abuse is beyond me. The Little children are sacred report noted on page 65:

... children in Aboriginal communities are widely exposed to inappropriate sexual activity such as pornography, adult films and adults having sex within the child’s view. This exposure can produce a number of effects, particularly resulting in the ‘sexualisation’ of childhood and the creation of normalcy around sexual activity that may be used to engage children in sexual activity. It may also result in sexual acting out and actual offending by children and young people against others.

According to the report, pornography was one of the main factors that led inexorably to family and other violence and then onto sexual abuse of men and women and finally of children. The schedule in this bill also requires that a community must request to have the service restricted. But many victims of abuse are simply not empowered. They feel powerless and often not in a position to stand up and speak out against their abusers and those who use pornography as a means for ultimately evil ends. It is ridiculous to say that we will only ban pay TV porn if the community actually asks for it. Under this bill they have to go to the minister and ask for a restriction. The minister then has to conduct an inquiry, which is consistent with what the Rudd Labor government does with everything. But who is going to come forward and request this? The person who has been horrifically abused in a culture of cover-up and deceit? Such a person would probably not feel they could go to anyone and ask for these sorts of restrictions.

If a victim of sexual abuse cannot often bring themselves to tell their family or their local police about the abuse they are subject to, how on earth will they be able to tell a federal minister or stand up in front of a community consultation, especially if their abuser is most likely in the crowd? It may be that in some communities one of the figureheads of the community is the perpetrator of the abuse. This is not unknown. In fact it can also be a family figurehead rather than a community figurehead. How could women and children speak out against a leading figure in the community? It does not make a lot of sense. The coalition supports a blanket ban on pay TV pornography in these communities. It is a tough but very necessary measure that aims to break the hold that pornography has in some Indigenous communities. Victims of abuse, such as women and children, should not have to run the risk of further abuse to make their opposition to pornography known.

I believe that this government is a slave to the political correctness that has caused so many problems for Indigenous communities. This government prefers to bow down to this political correctness rather than protect the women and children who have the most to lose from the changes to the emergency response. A complete ban is the best way to ensure that all possible is done to stop exposure of children to pornography. By even allowing a little bit of porn in, we are putting adult lusts ahead of the long-term wellbeing of children and their protection. The coalition will not support this schedule and, accordingly, I foreshadow that we will be moving some amendments to reflect the coalition’s aim of having a blanket ban on pornography that prohibits all R18+ television in the prescribed areas.

Schedule 2 of this bill deals with the transportation of pornography. Similar arguments can be used for schedule 2, which seeks to allow the transportation of pornography through prescribed areas to somewhere outside of the prescribed area. Of course, the devil is always in the detail, because under this bill the transportation of pornography into a prescribed area or community could actually fuel an excuse to avoid arrest in that someone can say: ‘No. I am heading somewhere else with this pornography and I wasn’t intending to distribute it here.’ It gives a very clear out to those who peddle this pornography in these communities, who make a living out of it and who profit from porn.

So the question is: how will this matter be policed? If a person with a large amount of pornography in the boot of their car says that they are headed to Alice Springs, who is going to make sure that they do not distribute the pornography along the way? Are the police going to follow them and escort them to Alice Springs to make sure that the pornography arrives at the stated destination? We do not support this schedule. Once again, it waters down the emergency response. I believe it opens the door to further potential abuse and will only fuel the continued cycle of desensitising children and fuelling sexual activity against children. We will be seeking an amendment to this government’s bill that allows the transportation of pornography through prescribed areas. Our amendment today will seek to continue the blanket ban on the transportation of pornography in these areas.

Schedule 3 of this bill deals with the permit system. It attempts to repeal the permit system amendments put in place by the coalition government last year. There are many arguments that will be espoused over the course of the second reading debate, and I am sure in the committee stage, about the relevance of the permit system. People will argue that the permit system protects communities from predators, from alcohol abuse and from people who would seek to potentially exploit some of the members of the communities. This is what I believe the government will argue, and they will do it in an eloquent manner, but it will miss the point. If the permit system had actually worked and protected the Northern Territory communities from predators, we would not have needed the emergency response, which was supported by the Labor Party last year. The intervention simply would not have been necessary. If the permit system was so fantastic, if it truly served the interests of policing and the conduct of people within those communities, how come these communities experience such horrific levels of abuse?

When the Little children are sacred report was released, the shock and surprise felt among the public and most members of this parliament was extraordinary. How could this happen? That was the question that was confronting all of us. How could we allow this to happen in this country? How could these conditions—child sexual abuse, physical violence, emotional abuse and poverty—exist on this scale in modern-day Australia? Importantly, why didn’t we know about it? And, if we knew about it, why didn’t we do anything about it? I have to say that I believe we did not know about how horrific this was in the main because the permit system had kept this tragedy hidden. The permit system had closed up communities and that literally fostered decades of abuse and poverty. It was a self-perpetuating cycle.

So the coalition government decided to lift this shroud of secrecy by repealing the permit system to 0.2 per cent of Aboriginal land. We repealed it in the larger public townships, in the connecting road corridors and in the common land that was within community land. It is very hard to argue why this is not the right thing to do, because the same access exists on public lands throughout the country. As Dr Stone stated in the other place:

One of the first emergency responses of the John Howard government was to normalise access to the Northern Territory prescribed communities. We did not say, ‘It’s open slather now.’ We normalised the situation by saying, ‘What is acceptable and commonplace in the rest of Australia should apply here.’

The aim of removing a small part of the permit system was to remove the climate of fear and intimidation, to help promote economic activity, to start lifting these communities out of the depths of poverty. One way to help alleviate the poverty is to encourage the growth of and to help build economies in these communities. This cannot be done successfully if the communities remain effectively a closed shop.

Supporters of the permit system will also claim that it stops grog runners from wreaking havoc. Only yesterday it was reported in the Australian that the majority of people arrested for bringing alcohol into prescribed communities were Aboriginals who did not actually need a permit. Ninety-eight Indigenous people have been summonsed, according to the Australian, since July 2007 for bringing alcohol into prescribed areas compared with just five non-Indigenous people, and 41 Indigenous people were arrested for consuming alcohol in a prescribed area compared with one non-Indigenous person. The permit system does not stop grog runners and those who consume alcohol illegally in these communities but it keeps these problems hidden. As I have said before, criminals will flout the law, but a modest removal of the permit system means that the right people can get access to ensure that these communities become safer places for people to live.

Schedule 3 of the bill states that ministerial discretion will be used to allow or not to allow journalists to enter Aboriginal lands. I do not believe it is right that the media should be banned from large parts of Australia except on the issue of a ministerial permit. The Little children are sacred report, which I keep coming back to, was so shocking because no-one had any idea that such abuse was happening. The media can actually help us with this. If you are aware of something, you have a better chance of dealing with the situation. Otherwise, it is the old saying: out of sight, out of mind. A reinstatement of the permit system would just lead to further sexual and physical abuse. This is not just the coalition’s position. Warren Mundine, the former ALP president has stated:

The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact, if you look at all the reports that have come out in the last few years, crime has flourished under the permit system, so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems.

Alison Anderson stated:

I think it—

the permit system—

has been used as a tool by some people in communities to reject certain people they disagree with or don’t want out there.

She also said:

My people need real protection, not motherhood statements from urbanised saviours … My people need the help and want the help from this intervention.

An anonymous ALP MP made an interesting comment about the permit system. The MP said:

We don’t want to get into a debate about this before the election but we’ll have a relook at it now.

Why didn’t they want to debate this? Because I think it is out of touch with mainstream Australia. We will be moving some amendments in regard to schedule 3 because we want to continue the repeal of the permit system put in place by the coalition government.

Schedule 4 deals with roadhouses and allows for a roadhouse to be licensed as a community store if the community is substantially dependent on the roadhouse for the provision of groceries and drinks. This part of the bill mirrors the bill introduced by the coalition government in late 2007. The coalition will be supporting this schedule.

I understand this is a very sensitive issue and many people feel very passionately about it. I truly believe that every member of this parliament wants to see a massive change to the cycle of abuse and poverty that takes place in many communities, but most starkly in some Indigenous communities where it appears to be quite widely prevalent. In the course of this debate we are going to have a lot of different opinions. The coalition remain committed to the tough measures that we think are having a great deal of success, and we believe that any watering down of the legislation that was enacted last year with the support of this chamber is a process that effectively sweeps under the rug the vile nature of some of the transgressions against children and adults in these communities. I do not want to see that happen. We will argue our case and I hope that the government ultimately will see wisdom and will support our amendments accordingly.