Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I can tell you that it has a lot more credibility than the Equality Rights Alliance who you were quoting to me a minute ago, Senator Siewert! If you could just afford me the decency that I afforded you, I would most appreciate it!

They went on to say that three options were given about income management: good, bad and undecided. The headline number here from an objective study conducted by impartial assessors, who had no vested interest in the communities that these measures targeted, is that double the number of respondents said that income management was good rather than bad. It is a very simple headline right across the communities.

There were a number of communities: Tennant Creek was actually just under fifty-fifty, so only 46 per cent of them said that it was good. However, places like Gapuwiyak in Arnhem Land said that 92 per cent responded 'good' and Aputula in Finke in the central desert responded with 80 per cent saying it was 'good'. I think that the worst one in terms of our side of the argument was Nguiu and the Tiwi Islands, where only 23 per cent said it was good.

But overall, the headline number was that double the number of respondents said it was good rather than bad; exactly twice as many of the people who get income managed. I would have thought that it was those individuals who would know best. In fact, on 25 August we had a change of government in the Northern Territory. Whilst that is probably unremarkable, three of the people who were elected in the southern end of the Northern Territory—two in the southern end and one sort of in the middle—were women, one of whom was re-elected and the other two who were new candidates. They were Bess Price, Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee.

Certainly, through my relationships with Bess and Larisa we often discussed these matters through that process, as you would. I know that I said there were some compelling arguments from people; they were all saying that we have done the wrong thing and all those sorts of things. I have to say to Senator Siewert that I do not think we get too much argument from her but that I would have thought we would from people like Bess Price, Alison Anderson and Larisa Lee, who are Aboriginal women who have spent much time in these communities. This is not only with the visiting that we tend to do, with respect to my colleague on the other side, Senator Crossin. I would love to say that I do more than that, but I certainly have not lived in them in the same way that these women have. They were born and brought up in these communities, and they certainly are able to reflect on the before and the after. I have to say that I have been very impressed with the answers that I get. The Greens certainly cannot put their hands on their hearts and claim to have more experience on Indigenous issues and more experience of life in the bush and remote areas of the Northern Territory than Ms Price, Ms Anderson and Ms Lee.

The reason that I make the point about this is that there has been a bit of a question about what people in the Northern Territory think about the intervention. There were possibly other issues; perhaps one other issue was a shire, to be honest. But if you ever needed a plebiscite on income management or the intervention, which was a bad and dastardly thing, then the election was fought on the basis of the intervention—certainly in Bess Price's and Alison Anderson's electorates. You would get more of the intervention if you voted for Alison Anderson and you would get more of the intervention if you voted for Bess Price—it was not so much with Larisa; she had a number of other issues. But they voted for them in their droves. There was an 18 per cent swing for Bess with a concerted process. There were a number of other issues; I do not want to distract from this particular issue.

In Central Australia, given the debate and given the issues that were canvassed there, particularly by the First Nations Political Party and the Greens who ran a single issue—'This is all about the intervention. You don't need any more intervention'—it was a clear plebiscite. No-one voted for them—well, close to no-one. I do not want to be misrepresented; there were a couple of people who were obviously lost on the day. So there was a clear plebiscite on this issue. Those are individuals whose life revolves around whether or not their income is quarantined. They had a choice to give some sort of mandate regarding whether they wanted it or not and they spoke out very clearly.

While I was talking to Bess a few weeks ago, she shared with me some of her perspectives about Indigenous culture. She grew up with descendants from pre-white settlement. It is very hard to imagine in our context, even in here, that there are people like her alive today, but that is how remote those places are. As a young woman she knew people who predated people coming in with their Land Rovers and helping people out. She was able to help me understand, as have many of my Indigenous friends, why it is that we have the demand-share system, as we call it in Indigenous communities. Often it is the case that when you have food you are culturally obliged to share it with your kin. There are some very practical reasons for that. If you have a kangaroo, you do not put half of it in the fridge or eat a foot and put the rest of it away. You simply do not have that opportunity. There are no fridges for storage, so you have to eat it all now. The demand-share system effectively deals with that circumstance and says, 'This is how you separate it. This is how you deal it. When Uncle asks you for something, you have to give it to him.' There are a whole range of very practical cultural processes around that. But, sadly, the notion of property and sharing has not translated well into a modern, cash based economy where one person has the resource. The obligation to use that now, even as they are trying to save, is very difficult. Its translation, sadly, is lost in that circumstance.

Imagine for a moment a woman who is raising a family and gets a pension or a Newstart payment as cash deposited into her account. There are plenty of people in her extended family in the township, including some who have a substance-abuse problem. Sometimes how they spend their money is not a choice. She is obliged to help. If she refuses, it is a serious matter. It is not a serious matter later; it is a serious matter now. Someone is instructing you to provide something to him or her to meet cultural obligations, and that makes it very difficult. Sometimes if you break those laws, you can be vulnerable to not only verbal abuse but also assault or isolation in the community. It is a very serious thing. It is not our notion of humbug—'I just wonder if I can borrow a tenner until Friday.' It is nothing like that at all. It makes it very hard for the people who wish to break out.

Let's have a quick look at what happened when we introduced the BasicsCard. I do not know about the Central Desert, but I have certainly spent a fair bit of time recently in some of the more northern coastal communities after its introduction. It was not right across the board, but I can remember the difference in many of the women who understood what was happening with it. When someone started humbugging, the women would say something like, 'BasicsCard: yaka rupiah,' meaning, 'There's no cash.' It is an answer to someone who is humbugging them: 'BasicsCard.' They cut off 'Yaka rupiah' and it became just 'BasicsCard'—nothing. They are far better off in that situation. I can tell you that the beneficiaries are very much the people who used to be the victims.

I refer again to the AIHW report of 2009. There are dozens of measures about the effectiveness of welfare quarantining. I will go through a couple of them. It is not only about money; it is about whether you have the capacity to have cash for alcohol. Participants were asked if their families were eating more fresh fruit and vegetables. This was not storekeepers; this was participants in the Institute of Health and Welfare report. It was reported that 56.9 per cent said yes and only 8.3 per cent said no. Also, vandalism was reported as going down by 18 per cent; there was 29 per cent less violence on the streets; 47 per cent of people reported feeling safer in their communities—that is something we take for granted, but that figure is pretty significant; 66 per cent said children are better looked after; 60 per cent said alcohol and drug abuse is down; 52 per cent reported that humbugging is down; and 63 per cent said there is less gambling.

Bess told me about a man in her family group who looks after six children and said that welfare quarantining saved his life—it was as simple as that. He said, 'I am now able, even in a cultural sense, to say, "Look, I've got to look after these kids. I've only got this much cash. Humbug me for some of that, but the rest of it is going to be for food for the kids."' I did a survey myself in a community of Wadeye that has had its challenges in the past. It has gone through some in the last couple of weeks. It has had challenges with alcohol, violence and gangs in the past. When I last went to Wadeye I spent a bit of time there. I commissioned a different survey. I hired local people who spoke the local language and ask them to find out what the people in Wadeye thought about a number of issues, and the BasicsCard was one of them. They had four options on how they rated the BasicsCard: really good, good, okay and bad. Forty-eight per cent said it was really good. That is top marks: 48 per cent. Seventy-three per cent rated it as either good or really good. That is a pretty significant statistic. The result is that money is not being wasted in funding the addictions of friends and kin. Money is actually being spent on looking after children and buying food and shelter. The Greens stand up in this place and claim to be acting in the interests of Indigenous people, but 73 per cent of people in Wadeye support the BasicsCard and, in that plebiscite, 0.7 per cent of people in Wadeye voted for the Greens candidate at the last election.

Indigenous women in the APY lands have been calling for welfare quarantining for a couple of years. They have seen the effects of the Basics Card across the border, they have seen the reduction in hunger, they have seen the kids getting fed, they have heard the women and elderly say that they are safer, and they have been asking for welfare quarantining to come into the Northern Territory. They have been able to observe. They are not subject to it, but they are subject to discussions with their peers. They are subject to discussions with individuals whom they know and trust. They say: 'What's this about? Is this about what the Greens tell us? Was this was introduced by a government to punish people?' They would say 'Yaka—nothing.' They would say: 'This is here to help us. The help that comes to us is simply because we do not get the cash anymore.' A mother would say, 'I am able to know that of the welfare that comes to me, to my husband and to our family half has to be used for things like rent, food and clothing'—all those sorts of issues we take for granted.

I know this has been an ongoing issue for the Greens, and I think I represent everyone in the Northern Territory, particularly the Indigenous people, when I say that they do not support it. Aboriginal people who are subject to this legislation and to welfare quarantining do not support the disallowance of this motion. It is never too late for the Greens to change their minds. It is never too late to represent the people they claim to represent. If they are at cross-purposes with anyone in this debate they are at cross-purposes with those they purport to represent in the centre of Australia.