Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I did not make any comments about the consultation process in my second reading speech because I wanted to concentrate on other more important aspects of this. I do want to place on record though that I am disappointed that Senator Scullion is not here tonight to join us, particularly since he is the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs and we are talking about his constituents. I am not entirely sure that going to Borroloola for the show is where I would put my priorities.

Let us go back to the consultations. I think if you have a look at what occurred over the last couple of months in terms of just this package of legislation, you would probably see that, as with any process, there were good pockets of consultation and not so good pockets of consultation. I do want to say though that I have never seen an Indigenous affairs minister get out and about and go to the committee to the extent that Minister Macklin did during this time. She did not go to all of the communities. None of us could have done that. There are 73 of them and six regional towns. But I think she went to at least about eight communities. That is more than I think I have seen an Indigenous affairs minister do for a very, very long time. I did hear, for example, that Maningrida people were pretty upset that the men and women were separated for consultations. When I got out to Maningrida the women said to me that that was what they had asked for and that is properly what you would do as well if you were going to conduct consultations properly. But I did hear that the communities were brought together so they could all have a bit of a discussion with the minister about it.

I go back to what I said at the beginning of my second reading speech. That is that we had an intervention introduced into this parliament five years ago with absolutely no consultation. It was implemented within 48 hours and it hit the ground running. People across the Territory had no idea what had hit them. But we have actually had legislation in place for five years that we have said we would change. We said that when it came to the end of its time we would talk to Indigenous people about whether we would or would not replace it and, if we were to replace it, about what they would want to see in it. We have had review after review. People have had three or four years to think about what they want the future of the Northern Territory to look like. I have had many discussions with people about what they want in and what they do not want in. They do not want to see government business managers in the legislation again. They want that role totally changed, but that is there. They do not want to see blue-and-silver signs. They want to put their own signs up, but that is there.

Tonight we have concentrated a lot on what some people perceive Indigenous people do not want, but there is an awful lot in this bill that Indigenous people do want. Do you know what? They are women. The majority of them are women, and the trend is the same in our society. It is usually the women whose voices we do not hear. It is usually those women who do not get down to Melbourne or Sydney, do not travel and do not have computers. But when we actually sit down with them, what do they say to us? They have said: 'Keep going with the alcohol management stuff, Trish; that's what we want to see. And try and get my kids to school.' If you look at this legislation, that is where the emphasis has been.

I have a view, with Senator Ludlam and Senator Siewert, that the restrictions you are trying to put in this legislation are too confined. I do not think we have got consultation with Indigenous people right. I am not sure anybody has. I am not sure that even the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples has got it right. I am not sure even Reconciliation Australia or ANSTaR have got it right. What I do know is that the land councils seem to get it right, however they have it in their structure and however they go about it. I asked a couple of people involved in the land councils how it is they seem to get their consultations pretty well right. It is because they use anthropologists in their consultations. They know who to consult and how to consult those people.

I am not entirely convinced that the model you are putting into this legislation is right. I think that there is vast room for improvement. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement, and we could do it all over again if we had the chance. Would we do it differently? Maybe we would in some places, maybe we would not. We have to look at whether or not we even subcontract the land councils to do the next round of consultations or somehow involve the skills they have and the way in which they consult people. I think the constrictions and confines you have put in this clause are not the way to go.