Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Along with my colleagues I concur with the concerns Senator O'Sullivan is expressing with regard to ensuring that some of our most marginalised children in this country get the best start in life. It is a deep concern with regard to attendance rates, whether it's in child care for Indigenous children or it's in schooling for Indigenous children. The educational relationships between families and schools begin with early child care. In a former life I was very privileged to bring messages about education and health and a better way of living to early childhood audiences throughout the Northern Territory in remote communities, throughout Queensland in remote communities, throughout New South Wales and throughout South Australia. I understand how important it is for those relationships to begin. During my previous life on the road presenting to children in musical fashion, I engaged with those families to ensure that those families started their relationships while the parents were attending and the wonderful Yamba the honey ant was presented to those children. Often it kicked off the importance of those relationships between parents and schools and child care. That's where it all begins, so I concur with my colleague and his concern.

It also offers the opportunity to intervene early in a child's life. We know that Indigenous children experience some of the highest rates of domestic and family violence in their homes. They are experiencing the highest rates of child sexual abuse, which is why our leader of the coalition is calling for a royal commission into the sexual abuse of Indigenous children. It is much needed. These are all issues that Indigenous children are confronted with, particularly our most marginalised in regional Australia. It would be in this government's best interests to ensure that they are keeping these children front and centre with this particular bill and ensuring that they are getting what they need.

Another issue that concerns me is that this bill seeks to legislate a new definition of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child in the family assistance act. This appears to be the first use of such a definition in Commonwealth primary legislation. Some concerns have been raised regarding this new definition as it doesn't exist in the family assistance act currently and it is different to the definition within the Social Security Act. Currently, the Commonwealth programs define an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person as one who is: first, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent; second, identifies as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person; and, third, is accepted as such by the community in which they live or have lived. This definition has been used by the courts as the ordinary definition in many cases, including the Mabo versus Queensland case and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. There seems to be little research or evidence as to why changing this definition to a person who identifies as a person of descent and is accepted by the community in which the person lives as being of that descent should come into effect.

The government haven't been able to demonstrate how they're going to increase the attendance numbers of Indigenous children, and I would hope that this isn't an activity to allow parents and caregivers to tick that box to claim Aboriginality. This is a huge issue of concern amongst Indigenous Australians. It's been brought up very recently. SBS ran an Insight program on it, and there are deeply concerned members of the Indigenous community who have seen an influx of individuals in this nation claiming Indigeneity. In fact, in the 2021 census 92,300 Australians ticked that box for the very first time in their lives.

So what does this mean when, in this new definition, a child doesn't necessarily have to be of descent but can be accepted by our community? There are huge questions around this and huge implications that I don't think this government has taken into account. We don't just give Indigeneity out of cornflakes boxes, do we? It's deeply insulting for Indigenous Australians with true identity. It certainly might be able to boost the numbers of what appear to be more Indigenous children attending child care, but it doesn't get to the heart of the point that some of our most marginalised, in regional Australia, are being forgotten about. That's because people in the cities can tick that box. Resources are drawn away from people in regional Australia. They are left high and dry—they're out of sight and out of mind. This idea of a voice is apparently about giving them a voice, but this is another push by the elites to continue to control circumstances for our most marginalised Indigenous Australians.

I would like to understand from the minister: can the government provide their justification for this new change, and can the minister clarify whether a non-biologically related child adopted by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family qualifies under this new definition?