Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (4), (17) and (20) on sheet 7221 together:

(4)   Clause 3, page 4 (line 15), omit "10 years", substitute "5 years".

(17)   Clause 111, page 95 (line 8), omit "10 years", substitute "5 years".

(20)   Clause 118, page 98 (line 9), omit "10 years", substitute "5 years".

These amendments are quite important. They effectively relate to the sunset clauses in the bill by changing the sunsetting from 10 to five years. I have made it abundantly evident that we strongly oppose the passing of this package of legislation. It is nothing more than an extension of the Northern Territory intervention, which is widely opposed and despised by the people who are subject to it. The extension as drafted will mean that the intervention will ostensibly be in place for 15 years. We oppose the continuation of the ineffective and expensive approach of the intervention. To date, there has been no evidence that the measures of the intervention have actually been effective.

I want to briefly highlight the issue of consultation. This was particularly evident at Hermannsburg when the Senate committee visited. While there, it became very clear that there was very little knowledge about the contents of the legislation amongst community members attending the hearing. This is extremely troubling considering that the government undertook consultations in that area. So, even in the areas where the government actually made the effort—went out, put the word out and tried to explain to people—when the Senate committee visited it appeared that people had no idea what the bill was about.

These problems were completely ignored in the Stronger Futures consultation report. Submissions and evidence received during the inquiry outlined the following criticisms of the report: it was not reflective of community's view, the way that the information was statistically analysed was unsound and the information gathered did not inform the government's approach or the drafting of the bill. So consultation occurred; it is just that the government do not appear to have actually listened to what people told them. In her submission to the Senate inquiry, Ms Cox from Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning clearly outlines problems with the analysis of data that was taken by O'Brien Rich. She said:

I have taught research methods for probably about 20 years in varying guises. You cannot have a system where you have got a whole lot of people recording things, probably in a fairly haphazard manner, particularly under what might be called a 'tier one'—which are many hundreds of things—where you have got a GBM or somebody who is writing some notes while having a bit of a chat to somebody and then you suddenly collect all of those notes, plus the notes from the tier two things, which also seem to be fairly chaotic and done in varying ways. And you hand them to somebody and you say, 'Analysis this.'

Ms Cox also comments on the impartiality of staff who were recording outcomes from the consultation. She says:

My concern is that these assertions—

from the O’Brien Rich report—

… make it clear that any credibility at all relates to the quality of the recording of views given, which is nowhere validated. Or even made public! The research consultants make it clear that they can at best state their products as reflecting … records of what went on.

She goes on to talk about the lack of objectivity of FaHCSIA note takers and their 'presumed limited formal research skills'.

The House of Learning, based out of the University of Technology, Sydney, did quite a comprehensive analysis of the consultation and stated that it did not comply with Australia's obligations to meaningfully consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This is the evidence base upon which the government then bases their reform and can come in here and say, 'This is what people told us.' I think you could admit, in fact, that the evidence base is highly suspect for these reasons, among others. The process was deficient because, they say, it did not involve the affected Aboriginal people in the design or implementation of the process; it relied on materials that were dense and complex and were not translated into relevant Aboriginal languages—and it is not the first time we have heard that matter raised; it was conducted in very general terms without reference to specific proposals or potential initiatives; it was decidedly partisan; it covered so many themes and asked so many questions that in-depth discussion was not possible—and on and on and on it goes.

The Australian Greens cannot allow a policy to continue for 15 years when it is based on insufficient consultation and is biased in favour of predetermined outcomes. The poor quality of consultation undermines any claim that these initiatives can be classed as special measures under the RDA. As such, while we welcome the commitment of resources for a further 10 years, subjecting people to a discriminatory, ineffective and damaging policy for the next 15 years is totally unacceptable and we do not support a 10-year sunset clause as we believe it is far too long. I would be greatly encouraged by an indication from the coalition, in the spirit of the last half hour or so, that they will also be supporting these amendments. I commend the amendments to the chamber.