Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Ask me how to spell it later. The Australian Greens are therefore disappointed that this bill represents only a number of minor legislative amendments instead of a clear overhaul of the intervention legislation that we believe is warranted. We are also disappointed that the government has failed to make any effort to ensure that the implementation of emergency measures in NT Aboriginal communities is consistent with its oft-stated commitments—that is, evidence based policy and the principle of social inclusion. The Greens are particularly disappointed that, now the ALP are in government, they have failed to address the issues which they clearly articulated in opposition during the debate on these series of bills, the issues around the Racial Discrimination Act and the fact that the whole of these provisions are exempt. I will note that, quite clearly, they recognise these issues because the issues around the R-rated material are in fact not being exempted from the RDA. So while they acknowledge that problem, and I will give them credit for that, they do not then seek to deal with the bigger issue around the whole of the legislation, and I will deal with that a bit later. I have circulated amendments on the issues around the RDA.

In the course of the Senate inquiry into this bill a large number of witnesses and submissions presented evidence that went beyond the immediate provisions of this bill. They raised a lot of concerns about the on-ground impacts of the intervention. This evidence reflects a high level of community concern with the on-the-ground impacts of the intervention. Some of the concerns raised were the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act; the practical problems with implementing the income-quarantining regime; the large amount of money being spent on measures which do not address the underlying causes of Indigenous disadvantage, child abuse and neglect; the wastage of money on income quarantining and administration; the failure to implement any of the recommendations of the Little children are sacred reportand I note that Rex Wilde spoke last week about his concern that the intervention is not addressing the recommendations of his report. People also raised concerns about the increasing levels of urban drift from remote communities into population centres and the establishment of new camps around Alice Springs, for example; the corresponding increase in demand for emergency response support from charitable organisations—some reported an increase of 300 per cent; the lack of community consultation and rights of appeal; the failure to build new houses or schools or to employ more teachers, health workers and child protection workers; and so on. As I said, there was a long list of concerns. I know that they are being considered in the government’s 12-month review. I am looking forward to seeing that report on 30 September.

On the issue of the suspension of the RDA—and, by the way, the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Act and the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act—the relevant policy question is whether the measures are right from a human rights perspective. The Greens do not believe the RDA issue needs to wait until the 12-month review has been undertaken because the fact is it needs to be taken from a human rights perspective. We believe it is inappropriate for the government to exempt these measures. There is no justification to exempt these measures from the RDA, so it is a fallacious argument for the government to say, ‘We’ll wait and see until the 12-month review has been carried out.’ It is not an issue that needs to be dealt with through that review. From a human rights perspective, the government needs to be moving to fix that.

We believe that the actions taken under the emergency response need to have the intention of benefiting Indigenous communities. They should be able to stand or fall, therefore, on their own merits. They should be able to fit the definition of special measures under the RDA and not need to be exempt from the RDA. We believe that that is pretty simple and that the government should move immediately to reinstate the application of the RDA to the emergency response legislation and to require that actions taken as part of the NT intervention are for the benefit of Aboriginal people and therefore compliant with the RDA.

I think it is fair to warn the government that in repeating ‘wait for the 12-month review’ there has been a significant build-up of expectations. The government keeps saying, ‘Wait for the review,’ but now there is a significant build-up in the community of the expectation that the review will actually deliver. We have some concerns around the review: the majority of the submissions being kept secret, the task force being handpicked by the minister and the lack of public forums and discussions. The government may have a job on its hands managing the community expectations if the review fails to deliver.

I find it strange that the government has produced a nice booklet. I would be interested to know how much it cost—they can take that on notice. They will be asked at estimates about the cost of this booklet, which is more like a propaganda exercise about the NT response. It is strange that it has been produced before the review has been carried out. Telling us how wonderful the NT intervention is before the review has been carried out seems to me—call me cynical—to pre-empt the outcomes of the review. By the way, I think the money should have been spent delivering real outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory rather than producing glossy documents like this.

At the same time as we have the review being carried out, this legislation is before the Senate. I put on the record that we support the reinstating of the permit system. It was our position all along that the legislation should not have sought to take away the permit system. There was no evidence presented by the government at the time that taking away the permit system would address child abuse. It was plain to everybody that the previous government wanted to get rid of the permit system, and this was just a handy vehicle to do so. There was never any evidence that linked the permit system to child abuse, and there was no evidence presented to the committee inquiry that the level of child abuse has gone down as a result of taking away the permit system.

There was also evidence presented to the committee about statements the previous minister had made in relation to the permit system. People will recall that, before the permit system was changed under the NT response legislation, the government was in a consultation period. The minister at the time said that that consultation process supported taking away the permit system. The majority of submissions presented to the committee in fact did not support the taking away of the permit system. A justification was given that taking away the permit system would be supported by the community, but we do not believe that statement was justified. It was not true—the majority of the submissions did not support taking away the permit system.

The committee heard evidence from the NT police that they found the permit system useful. There was very strong evidence given to the committee about how the Aboriginal communities regard the permit system as important because it relates particularly to their being able to protect property rights and make decisions about who is on their land and who is not. Evidence was also given about the ability to protect visitors in remote locations. If they know that people are in remote locations on Aboriginal land, they can help with their safety.

As I said, we support the restoration of the permit system. We also acknowledge that the government took on board recommendations that were made during the committee inquiry process about the need to address amendments around the issues of sacred sites. We acknowledge that the government is amending the legislation to deal with that. However, we have strong reservations—and we expressed them in the minority committee report on this legislation—about the provisions empowering the minister for Indigenous affairs to unilaterally declare a person or a class of persons exempt from the need to obtain a permit under section 70(2BB) or to delegate this power to an officer of FaHCSIA.

The Australian Greens do not believe that it is either necessary or desirable for the minister or the delegate to issue permits without consultation with the traditional owners. The Australian Greens note the concern expressed by the NT government that these provisions potentially open a back door by which a future minister could seek to remove the permit system, in effect, through a series of administrative decisions. I would also like to let the government know, so that it is on record, that I will be seeking assurances from the government during the committee stage of this debate—or the minister may want to address this in his comments in closing the second reading debate on this bill—that such a move would be against the intention of this legislation.

I also note concerns given in evidence by the Central Lands Council that this provision has the potential to create a parallel permit system which bypasses community consultation and encourages applicants to shop around. This has the potential to create confusion and undermine the effectiveness of the on-the-ground implementation of the permit system. If communities are not being consulted and are not informed when the minister issues permits, there will be no way of knowing who should or should not be within their area and no way of knowing who is there. So we have some concerns about that discretion and I will seek clarification from the minister about the extent to which that discretion will be applied and a commitment that consultation will be carried out with the traditional owners of the land.

The next part of this bill that the Australian Greens have some concerns and reservations about is the likely impact and cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendments regulating pay TV narrowcasts of R18 materials. Having said that, the Australian Greens are deeply concerned about access to these sorts of materials, but we are not necessarily convinced that this is going to be effective in controlling access to some of this material. Quite frankly, the Australian Greens think it is a good idea to limit the exposure of all Australian children to this type of material. It is not just damaging to Aboriginal children. I also must point out that it is not just Aboriginal children who are being abused in this country. Again, we need to be looking at how we implement some of these measures in the broader community to see how we can restrict access or educate all children on the impact of this sort of material.

We are concerned that by focusing just on this sort of narrowcast concept we are actually using resources that could be better applied to dealing with these issues in a more effective way in communities. These resources could be spent in more effective ways addressing this issue in communities. I am inclined to think that this is almost an issue of being seen to be doing the right thing because it is an obvious issue rather than looking at what is the best way to spend our resources. Banning R18+ programming narrowcast into prescribed areas is quite technically difficult and expensive—and, from evidence given to the committee, it looks like we are talking about between 50 and 70 households. In all of these communities we are talking about 50 to 70 households. We are going to a lot of trouble to restrict access to this material for 50 to 70 households—we do not know who those households are, from what I understand—when there is a fairly effective prevention mechanism already in place.

We are not saying that this material is acceptable. I do not want one person to run away thinking that the Greens think that this is acceptable material. We are saying that we think that resources could be spent in achieving better outcomes in communities. The Little children are sacred report noted that it was unlikely that access to violent and sexually explicit material could be prevented. Recommendation 67 notes that intentionally exposing children to indecent material is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment and suggests a concerted effort to increase community awareness about that. Implementing an education campaign to inform community members of the harm done to children by viewing sexually explicit material needs to be strongly considered, and the illegality of intentionally exposing them to indecent material is more likely to be effective in protecting children. Such an education campaign could also address the harm caused by exposing young children to violent programs as well as to sexually explicit ones. This, we believe, should also be supported by culturally appropriate education programs for children that tackle personal safety issues and clearly define what is inappropriate sexual behaviour and how best to respond to threatening situations—talking to our children and getting them to understand how to tackle these issues. As Olga Havnen noted in evidence to the committee:

It has been extremely distressing to note that, given the great haste and the great focus that was originally placed on this thing around child protection and the need to tackle child sexual abuse, so little appears to have been achieved to date by way of the employment and engagement of child protection workers.

Very few new workers have actually been put on the ground in response to the intervention. We believe that that needs to be urgently addressed. So, while the Australian Greens will be supporting this particular measure, we strongly urge the government to move to implement some more effective child protection strategies like the community education and training measures I have just mentioned and actually putting more child protection workers on the ground.

This bill also seeks to allow roadhouses upon which prescribed communities are substantially dependent to be licensed as ‘community stores’ and hence able to receive quarantined moneys. The Australian Greens are concerned that there is not a clear definition of what counts as ‘substantial dependence’ and that the accreditation system fails to tackle the larger issues of the cost and nutritious value of the food provided. We will be seeking to clarify what ‘substantial dependence’ means. We think there needs to be a more rigorous accreditation scheme applied to these stores in a manner that encourages them to lift the quality of food. We support the suggestion put forward by the Central Land Council in evidence to the inquiry that stores should be encouraged and required to train and employ local community members. We do not in principle object to local roadhouses being licensed as community stores where there is a substantial dependence on these stores in the absence of a viable alternative, but we believe that the first priority should be to build community capacity and enterprise by establishing or supporting community stores where there are sufficient economies of scale to make them viable. So we will be supporting this particular measure. As I said, the Greens will be introducing amendments around the exemption of all of the NT response to the RDA.