John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Bartlett:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for all political parties and all levels of government to make the long-term commitment of working constructively together with Indigenous Australians and communities to address the completely unsatisfactory health and housing situations faced by many Indigenous people.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Bartlett

Australian Democrats Senator for Queensland

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The need for all political parties and all levels of government to make the long term commitment of working constructively together with Indigenous Australians and communities to address the completely unsatisfactory health and housing situations faced by many Indigenous people.

I have raised this urgency motion today because I believe it is very important for the Senate, and for the political process more broadly, to continually remind itself about the necessity of giving priority to the situation faced by Indigenous Australians. I believe from conversations I have had with many senators in this place over a number of years that the vast majority of us would and do very genuinely want to see an improvement in the situation faced by Indigenous Australians.

What I believe is the unavoidable truth is that, frankly, the political system itself—and most of us within it—really does not know how best to go about it. It is about time we looked at the evidence to back up that claim. There would not be another area of public policy where the political system has so comprehensively failed as in the area of Indigenous affairs. Over the 105 years since Federation there has been a litany of failure on the part of the political process, sometimes driven by malevolence, sometimes by disinterest and sometimes with genuine goodwill, but in almost all cases with unintended consequences. As a general result today we have reached the point where there is obviously still major inequality and a significant situation where the average Indigenous Australian has far fewer opportunities than other people in the country.

Nowhere is this more starkly and inexcusably reflected than in the basic statistic—a statistic that we should remember is reflected by living, breathing human beings—that the life expectancy of the average Indigenous Australian is at least 17 years shorter than the rest of us. What continues to frustrate me and many people is that we have such a stark health statistic, which states that a group of people in our community live 17 years less on average than the rest of us, and yet it is not a political scandal of the highest order and it is not priority No. 1 for all political parties and all parliaments—state, federal and territory. That, I believe, is simply because it is literally in the too hard basket. It is literally an issue which the political system as a whole does not know how to address so we lurch from crisis to crisis, from short-term solution to short-term solution, and the overall situation—whether it is health, housing or violence in communities—continues to be one that is totally unsatisfactory.

What I do not seek to do by this motion is to point fingers of blame at any particular party or level of government. The political system as a whole, as I have said, has plenty of blame to go around. I think we have all failed—all major parties, all levels of government and indeed I would be quite prepared to put smaller parties in that category of failing as well—because none of us, the smaller parties included, have given adequate priority to the need to overcome this single, most disgraceful inequality in modern Australia. We all know the statistics and the different stories and situations, whether in fundamentals such as health and housing or some other areas.

I want to point to one aspect that needs to be given more emphasis. We repeatedly hear that you will not solve the problem by throwing more money at it. Certainly, if you just throw money of any amount—small or large—at a problem without direction and without seeking to ensure that it is properly spent then, no, you will not help. But that should not be taken to mean that it does not need more resources, because clearly, in some of these areas, there is a need for more resources—in health and housing in particular. The Australian Medical Association has estimated that we are hundreds of millions of dollars short of what we need to address Indigenous health. Similar amounts of money are needed up-front, in large amounts, to deal with the ridiculous overcrowding in many Indigenous communities in housing. Whilst these are large sums of money they are also only the price of one or two of the latest high-tech fighter planes of which we are seeking to buy another 20 or 30. It is a matter of priority.

By this motion I do not seek to blame. I seek to put the pressure and obligation on all of us, on all sides of politics and all levels of government to give greater priority to this issue, to keep reminding ourselves of it day after day rather than just responding with the right sounding words whenever it hits the headlines. We need to be working on it when it is not in the headlines. We need to be working on it day after day, continually, and we need to be working on it with Indigenous communities. There is still too much of governments getting together—as we are seeing with the summit in the near future—and determining solutions that are once again going to be imposed on Indigenous communities. It is a long-term task—it will take 20 or 30 years. It will take all of us working together and it will take all of us having to work with and listen to Indigenous communities to find out what will work for them. (Time expired)

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this very important motion. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Senator Bartlett on using this time in the Senate today for something that is very, very important—not only to myself as a Territorian but to all Australians. It is vital that we work together constructively to address the lot of Indigenous Australians and particularly of those who are living, by and large, in Indigenous communities. I will be supporting you, Senator Bartlett, and the Democrats in this very important motion.

I am particularly proud to be part of a government that is showing leadership in almost every aspect of this particularly important policy area. I am not so sure that all jurisdictions are doing the same. I am not so sure that they will pay much attention to this motion for working together. I have been working very closely in the Northern Territory with Mal Brough over the last couple of months, and it has been well reported how Australians generally have responded to action in this area. It is disappointing that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Clare Martin, told us a number of things, the first of which was: ‘We need action, not words.’ That is what we need, Mr Deputy President—action.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is right about that.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Carr. Action—I am glad you understand what that actually means. Of course, she changed her mind the next week. She said she was going to the summit and then she said she was not going to the summit. Suddenly she said, ‘No summit.’ So we have ‘Turnaround Martin’. It is all right, Senator Carr, you would understand this: let us have a 20-year plan, something that comes from the back blocks of Jurassic Park in the Soviet Union. That is where that sort of stuff comes from. Let us have a 20-year plan. Nothing changes in 20 years, Mr Deputy President, according to those on the other side, and that is why they are a completely policy-free area on Indigenous affairs.

Of course, we are not sure what the plan will consist of—probably more of what we have got from the other side—but I would hope not. They say: ‘If you break your house, if you don’t look after it, if you bash it, if you have a riot or you destroy it, we’ll just build you a new one.’ It is all part of the same welfare mentality that has brought Indigenous Australians to such terrible circumstances.

I can tell you that people are sick of listening to all of those arguments that we have from fundamentalists on the other side. We cannot go and do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Those days are over. This government is about action and about changing the lot of Indigenous Australians. Clare wants to discuss which way we want to go. We do not need a 20-year plan. We actually know what needs to be done now. What we need, Clare, is action. I know what Indigenous Territorians have told me throughout time. They are like every other Australian. There is no difference at all. They simply want to be able to buy their own homes and have a good education. They want some safety in their communities. They want some employment. Also, again, there is the fundamental issue of simply having a bit of hope.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be disappointed then, won’t they!

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We continue to have interjections from the other side. I have to say that they should really focus on trying to get some answers to this issue because they are being substantially left behind. The principle that most Territorians and I know all Indigenous Australians want is equality in their communities. That is exactly what they are going to get under this government. We actually plan to make sure that people live in communities that work in exactly the way that every other community works. It is a very simple process. It is a process of normalisation.

Everybody accepts that not all of these communities are the same. I know I have a number of comparisons. If you go to one of the communities in my electorate, Daly River, you will find that it is quite a well functioning community. The houses are wonderful. When you look at it, it is no different from any other place in regional Australia. Yes, we need to go a long way, but I know that Miriam Rose Bowman and others will show the leadership that is necessary in that place to ensure that that goes forward.

I have to say that one of the principal concerns that I think we have—or most Australians do—is: why is it so different in Indigenous communities? It is that fundamental question that this government has focused very much on answering in the last few months. If we are going to have normalisation in these places, we have to accept that many of the Indigenous communities, particularly in my electorate, are communities where the demographic is such that they live in an area where there is not necessarily a whole range of resources. There are not the opportunities available in those areas that there would be in other places.

But, of course, they are trapped. They are trapped because of one issue: education. I am talking not only about learning to read and write but also about simply having sufficient education and confidence, as the leaders in those communities do—the older people in those communities have those skills—to be able to leave the communities and home towns where they were born and go out into the external community to work, as other Territorians and Australians do. If you look anywhere in regional Australia, you will find that there are plenty of demographics where the opportunities adjacent to where people live are small in number. They are not opportunities that will allow a population to grow and thrive without creating massive unemployment. That is simply because of the opportunities that are adjacent to those areas geographically.

Of course, we do not have that demographic reflected in Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities tend to remain static in their own country. Instead of having the confidence to move out and ensure that they can take opportunities in other areas, they cannot move. That is fundamentally about education. When you have an education, you have choice. The passport to freedom in an Indigenous sense is an education. In so many of the communities now, particularly in remote regional Australia, we have a centre hub. Around the centre hub we have what we call outstations. The outstation argument has been argued up and down. People need to be on country, but it has taken people away from those services.

A fundamental rule of the way forward would have to be that, if we are going to support places like outstations and homelands, we need to make sure that they are in fact connected in some way throughout the year to adequate education and health services. That is an absolute fundamental. It happens everywhere else in Australia. Without that building block of education, I think the circumstances we will find are that Indigenous housing and health in these communities are going to be again offset by the very small number of opportunities that present themselves.

This motion also goes specifically to housing. There are a couple of fundamentals on how we approach Indigenous housing. We have asked the states and territories to provide, effectively, housing. There are a number of mechanisms through which that is done. But I have to say that it is very sad that some jurisdictions around Australia—and it appears that it is in fact all jurisdictions around Australia—when it comes to Indigenous housing are failing miserably. That is not just a measure of what I think or a political statement based on the fact that they are all represented by the Labor Party. The fact of the matter is that $141 million less was spent on Indigenous housing in all of those states and territories than should have been the case. That is an outrage.

I think that people on the other side who are trying to take any sort of moral high ground need to rethink their position, talk to their state and territory colleagues, get on the program and ensure that they spend the funds that are appropriated directly on that housing. Actually, they need to perhaps take a little bit of advice from some of their leadership. I think it is about leadership. It is a fundamental aspect of this. The ALP national president, Warren Mundine, says that the ALP needs to make changes in its approach to Indigenous policy. Where were they for nine months when we were trying to cut off the head of the sacred cow, ATSIC? Where were they then? They were wasting time. We would not be having the debate if ATSIC were alive and well and standing in the way of good governance, leadership and progress in this matter. Again, there are delays. He goes on to say, referring to the ALP:

... the party had to look more favourably at the mutual obligation deals now being struck between Aboriginal communities and the Federal Government.

They fought that all of the way. Again, I implore those on the other side to have a little bit more of a progressive look at this issue. At the moment, as we speak here, we are now debating in the other place the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. As I understand it, those on the other side are in fact opposing it. They are opposing measures that would allow people to own their own homes—a fundamental right, I believe, of Australians. They will be able to own their own homes. They will not be able to own their own homes unless we get support from all people in this place. Yes, we will probably get it through because it is commonsense, but I appeal for a bit of commonsense from the other side. (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Bartlett. I commend him for doing so, because he seeks to rise above the sort of contribution that Senator Scullion made. Senator Bartlett tried to focus on the needs of Indigenous people and the way forward, unlike the grandstanding, point-scoring and petty political attacks that characterised Senator Scullion’s performance and that of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a petty issue.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not a petty issue. Senator, stick to abusing coppers.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a petty issue.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a petty issue, but your government’s performance has been petty—with everything being the state government’s fault and everybody else’s fault, and you taking no responsibility.

What I want to do is concentrate on the aspects of the motion that I think ought to be given support—for example, the long-term focus on plans that are not just driven by the latest media frenzy but fundamentally attack the causes of the disadvantages—and call for a bit of a bipartisan approach, to take some of this petty politics that we have just seen out of the debate, and to a focus on the disadvantage.

Minister Brough has very much focused on the symptoms. This motion seeks to focus on the causes. I suggest, Senator Bartlett, that your motion should have done both—because both need to be tackled. Mr Brough is right in saying that we have to tackle the symptoms by providing extra policing and measures that help prevent the violence and child abuse occurring in the first place. But we also have to recognise—as I think Minister Brough is coming around to recognise—that we have to focus on the housing needs, the employment needs, the education needs and the economic development needs. A lot of what occurs in terms of Indigenous disadvantage in this country is effectively caused by their poverty. These are fundamental issues of poverty, and the economic disadvantage is a root cause of a whole range of these other symptoms. So we have to address both the symptoms and the causes.

I think the issues about Indigenous disadvantage are well known. The bottom line is that there is nearly a 20-year gap in life expectancy between European Australians and Aboriginal Australians. That has not shifted for years. We have made no progress. If we look at all the indicators about progress—health statistics, employment statistics et cetera—we see that very little or no progress has been made over successive governments. I remind members of the government that they have been in power for 10 or 11 years. They have some responsibility for where we are at now. And changing the policy name from ‘practical reconciliation’ to ‘the quiet revolution’ does not address the fact that they have done nothing to significantly alter the life expectancy and conditions of Indigenous people. And I concede that the previous Labor government also made very little headway on that. So we have a joint responsibility.

In the House of Representatives today, Minister Brough was looking for the cheap political attack, looking for the cheap point scoring, looking to blame the state governments and looking to try to position Labor as being anti home ownership. We have been in favour of home ownership for 100 years. We were actually in favour of it for poor working European Australian citizens. We have always been in favour of it for all, including for Indigenous Australians. But that is not what this is about; it is about responding to the serious concerns of Indigenous violence and child abuse—which have been put on the agenda again recently.

I remind the government that the Prime Minister had a national summit in 2003. What happened? Nothing. Virtually nothing has occurred in the interim. There was also a national outcry in 1999. Both occurred while this government have been in power. But now the government come in and say, ‘Get on board; we’ve got the magic solution.’ Senator Scullion knows that there are no magic solutions or quick fixes. We need a national commitment from all sides of politics, from business, from the community and from Indigenous people. Unless we get that, we will just have another point-scoring debate, which will leave Aboriginal people worse off. I encourage the government to actually think about it.

Minister Brough was in the House of Representatives today talking about ‘communist enclaves’. He described Indigenous people’s communities as ‘communist enclaves’. Have you ever heard anything more politically charged and more designed to denigrate those people who live there and to provide a divisive debate? It is again all about the wedge and about the denigration of Indigenous people, and it is not about improving the way forward. When I offer bipartisanship to him and when I genuinely try to get some cooperation, I get back name-calling. I get ‘You’re wishy, washy’ or ‘You’ve got your head in the sand’—all that sort of stuff. That is the sort of statesmanlike leadership we are getting at the moment!

I believe Mr Brough was genuinely surprised—I do not know where he has been all his life—when he ran into the entrenched poverty, disadvantage and violence that exist in Indigenous communities. I give him that. But to think that he can rampage around the community, blaming people and thinking that somehow he is going to fix it all by pulling publicity stunts is just wrong. We know it is wrong. We know it has not worked before. We have had Labor ministers, Liberal ministers and Prime Ministers go out and do their publicity stunt in a remote community and come back to Canberra and say that it was a life-changing experience—and what changes? Nothing. Their life might have changed, but nothing changes for the Indigenous people living in those communities. I do not want to see that happen again.

I think if the government could pull back and think about it, they would realise that they need us. They need the state governments, they need federal Labor and they need people like the head of News Ltd—who made a very good contribution the other day. To overcome Indigenous disadvantage, we need everyone. If Mr Brough things that he can do it on his own, I have news for him: he will be another failed minister for Aboriginal affairs. There is a long list of them—mainly good people. Some of them are still working in the area. I met with Fred Chaney the other day. Twenty years on and he is still fighting to improve Indigenous people’s life experiences. There are good people who are committed to the cause who have not had a substantial impact because of the entrenched problems. There is no quick fix, and people ought to recognise it.

I do not want to see what is happening at the moment. Minister Brough is doing damage as he goes around the communities, because he is bringing disrespect on a lot of the Indigenous people. They have been calling for assistance to combat violence and abuse for years and years. A delegation of Aboriginal women from Queensland tried to spark the Prime Minister’s interest in 1999. They said, ‘We need action now.’ They were desperate. We are seven years on. In 2003, after the last outrage at the publicity concerning violence, the Prime Minister said that we would have a national framework to tackle it. Clearly, that has not worked. Clearly, the commitment somehow faded. Clearly, the resolve was not maintained.

I can blame the federal government for that, but where does that get us? Nowhere. It does not get us anywhere. If Minister Brough wants to debate what the states have not done, I will take him through what he has not done in Wadeye: the housing never turned up; the expenditure on housing has not occurred. I know it is always somebody else’s fault. What happened to the money that was supposed to be provided for the community patrol in the town? It never happened. It is three years on and it has still not happened. They promised a community patrol; they promised the money. It has not happened. They wanted a crime prevention grant in October to prevent the violence that occurred the other month—the violence that so shocked the minister. What happened? No funding. So do not come in here and say that it is all someone else’s fault. It is the fault of all of us. Until we all take responsibility, until we stop this stupid name-calling and blame, we are not going to make any progress. We all have to actually accept responsibility.

A point I want to make is that a senior Aboriginal man told me the other day that Mr Brough is like a willy-willy: he comes out of nowhere and he leaves a trail of destruction, but it is all just wind. Aboriginal people feel that the categorising of Indigenous people as child molesters and perpetrators of violence has disparaged them all. They feel that all their efforts to tackle those problems have been laid to waste; that the efforts that have been made by thousands of Indigenous people throughout the community are being discounted. Those are the sorts of issues that the minister has to address. He has to come to terms with those things.

At the very important summit that ANTaR ran this morning to discuss some of those issues, someone made the point that the government has to do things with Aboriginal people, not do things to them. There is a clear difference. Minister Brough’s approach is about doing things to them: telling them what they have done wrong and that he can fix it all. We all know that the solution is to do things with Indigenous people. All the international experience tells us that and all the experience in Australia tells us that. Minister Brough going around and telling them what they have to do, what they have done wrong and how he will fix it will not provide the solution. We all know that and I am sure that Senator Scullion knows that. Home ownership is part of the answer but it is not the whole answer. We have to actually build support for positive change to address these issues in a long-term way. (Time expired)

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

We are all aware of the statistics on health and housing in Aboriginal communities: a 17-year gap in life expectancy, high levels of childhood mortality and morbidity and high levels of death and disablement from predictable diseases—for example, ear infections and trachea. You hear stories all the time about children going to school but that there is not much point because some of them have such severe ear infections that they cannot actually hear what they are being taught. It is no wonder that they get bored and do not want to be there. There are countless reports about housing conditions, where between 15 and 20 people live in a three-bedroom house with one bathroom.

There is also report upon report and strategy upon strategy. These issues have been around for a long time. They have not suddenly eventuated because Mr Brough has become the minister and has gone out to a few Aboriginal communities and because the media has suddenly decided, yet again, for a short space of time, that there is a crisis going on. That crisis has been going on for a very long time, as is articulated and is evident from the figures that I have just gone through, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. We have continued to have a cycle of knee-jerk reaction, crisis, piecemeal approach and extremely short term funding—funding cycles of 12 months, for example. Yet again, just today I heard about another example of a funding program that was proposed for 12 months. The difference is that the organisation that was being offered the money said: ‘No, we’re not going to do it any more. You think that we can fix this problem in 12 months.’ They cannot, so they refused to take the money. I say: good on them; send the government a message.

I was also at the ANTaR forum this morning and Tom Calma gave yet another excellent presentation. He talked about the strategy on violence that was released in 2004. That strategy was a good one. That strategy talked about the key things that need to be done. But, guess what? It is not being implemented. There is a bookshelf full of reports not being implemented. The reports talk about the bad statistics, but nothing is being done. The government has missed an opportunity yet again, this year, with the budget. It handed out billions of dollars of tax cuts without addressing housing. You only have to open up the latest report by Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma to see how much funding is needed to address Aboriginal housing in this country. What is the figure? It is $2.1 billion. And what do they get? A measly amount in the budget.

It is the same with health. Even to bring Aboriginal communities up to the standards of non-Aboriginal communities, the estimate is half a million dollars a year. Money is given back as tax cuts to people who do not really need it. If they were asked, ‘Would you rather invest this money in Aboriginal communities so that we can close the mortality gap of 17 years?’ and if they had a true picture of what was going on and the impacts in those communities, I would bet that a lot of people would say, ‘Yes, we want that money spent in those communities.’ There is always this approach: ‘Let’s turn around and blame the service deliverers’; ‘Let’s blame ATSIC’; ‘Let’s get rid of ATSIC’. We all know ATSIC delivered only one-seventh of the money that was going to Aboriginal communities. And there is: ‘Let’s blame self-determination, community empowerment and capacity building. They just haven’t done it, so it’s not our fault that they’re still suffering from significant disadvantage.’ That was never the intention of self-determination, community empowerment and capacity building.

Of course, the proposal never was that everything would be handed over and heaped on the shoulders of Aboriginal communities for them to deal with it alone, without government support, without the support of the agencies and without delivering the services that every other Australian expects. Aboriginal communities expect, and have a right to, the same sort of service delivery. They have a right to equality of health and equality of housing conditions. I again turn to Tom Calma’s work as the Social Justice Commissioner. The plan he has put forward is for Aboriginal Australians to reach equality within a generation. His plan puts through a series of goals and benchmarks that we should be meeting over the next 25 years to ensure that an Aboriginal child born today has the same health and housing standards as non-Aboriginal Australians. But, let me tell you, if we do not start addressing that point now, today, Aboriginal Australians will still be suffering the 17-year mortality gap—or we might have narrowed it slightly; maybe it will be only 15 years. They will still be suffering that 17-year gap unless we start addressing the gap now. We are talking about generational change. (Time expired)

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was quite gratified when I read this urgency motion today because I agree that this is an issue above party politics. This is an issue that concerns every single member of this chamber. But Senator Evans did at least half of his speech as a bag job on the minister who is trying to make amends in this very difficult area. Senator Evans talked about a bipartisan approach, but he spent at least half of his time bagging the minister. We have just had another contribution, from Senator Siewert, which was full of bagging. So whilst I agree that a bipartisan approach is needed here—and I am disappointed that Senator Bartlett is not in the chamber to hear these contributions—I must say that I have yet to hear too much that is bipartisan in the contributions from those opposite. My contribution today is made as a former chair of the joint native title committee and as a former president of the Bennelong Society.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well done, Senator Bipartisanship.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr makes ridiculous remarks. He cannot control himself. I would like to think that he would listen to my contribution because I have some quite important words that might help him. I am very glad to see that both state and federal governments have been linked to this motion by Senator Bartlett today, because there would not be a person in this chamber who would not agree that this is an issue that should be a long way above any cheap political point scoring. Successive Australian governments and their state and territory counterparts have attempted in various ways to tackle issues of Aboriginal health and housing, but sadly they have had mixed results.

I would like to refer to one of the most thought-provoking contributions on this very vexatious and difficult issue that I have heard for a very long time. It was made at the 2005 Bennelong Society conference, which Senator Carr was bagging a few minutes ago. It was made by the now President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Warren Mundine. However, he made the comments as an individual, an Aboriginal man extremely concerned about these issues. I would urge Senator Carr, Senator Marshall and any of those opposite who happen to be watching this debate to listen carefully to the passionate speech that Mr Mundine made to our Bennelong conference on Indigenous freedom and his very thoughtful speech about Indigenous issues in today’s society.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are going to bag him now?

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr could read the speech if he cared to go to the Bennelong Society website. Mr Mundine argued very clearly and strongly that land in Indigenous communities should be used for socioeconomic development. He urged governments, both state and federal, to look at the privatisation of some lands for housing and development.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I must ask opposition senators to refrain from interjecting.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Mundine’s speech, which was a particularly thought-provoking and well-delivered speech, raised a number of very important points in relation to the role of private housing and the impacts that these changes could have on Aboriginal people in various communities, both regional communities and remote communities. I would urge senators with an interest in this topic to take the time to read his speech. It is very worth while. I must say that, at the recent funeral of my good and old friend Rick Farley, I spoke to Warren Mundine and commended him again on that speech and suggested to him that he might now try to implement some of these issues as policy in the Labor Party. His comments that were shared with so many people at the conference on that day can be encapsulated by this quote from his speech: ‘The youth of our communities are crying out for a better future and to give them that future that they want and need, I would suggest the following’. And, interestingly enough, none of these issues were raised by Senator Evans in his contribution. I will include just a few of the issues in my contribution today:

Ensure our hard fought gains in Native Title, ILUA’s and State Land Rights legislation ... be protected so that they can be used for the direct benefit of everyone. ...

Create more efficient management and corporate governance practices.

Provide specific outcomes and be outcomes driven.

Provide clear socio-economic benefits to everyone—not just the few.

I thought it was interesting that Senator Evans said today that poverty was one of the driving forces in Aboriginal communities. Let me say what else is a driving force—that is substance abuse. Let us get that on the table. There is no point skating around what is a substantial cause of the difficulties facing particularly women and children in rural and remote Aboriginal communities. I say that very sadly and reluctantly, but as someone who has travelled widely in rural and remote communities and as someone who has gone out with Indigenous night patrols in a number of rural and remote centres in both the Northern Territory and my home state of South Australia and seen first-hand the tragic circumstances facing women at the hands of drunken Aboriginal men in their homes. Unless we get substance abuse on the table, unless it is addressed by the state government and unless the police and the Aboriginal workers in that area take on this topic, we are never going to get to the bottom of the problem. I commend Mal Brough for the issues he is taking on. I said to Warren Mundine, ‘Please, stick with your speech—move forward,’ and he said, ‘This is not easy.’ I know it is not easy. It is not easy for anybody.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How touching!

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly not easy for Senator Carr as he sits there and denigrates the president of his own party—an Aboriginal man who had the courage to lay on the table at a non-party-political conference the issues that need to be tackled for the youth of Aboriginal communities. In his view, the issues that need to be tackled as policy, and again I refer to his speech, are: the development of Indigenous private enterprises and home and property ownership as the basis for building a future in those communities for families, as in the rest of Australia; and working with Indigenous youth by putting them into trades and/or university programs where they can—as his sons are—become self-employed and run their own enterprises. These policies must be put in place.

Minister Brough is moving to do these things. Educational programs, scholarships and private home ownership are issues that we need to tackle. Chief Minister Clare Martin’s housing minister, Elliot McAdam, said that, without decent housing, efforts to end the sexual violence and substance abuse are futile. What confusion is this man suffering from? We all know that, but what is the Northern Territory government doing to address the problem? (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard a couple of speakers from the Liberal Party and, of course, the doormats from the National Party on this issue. We have claimed that this is in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr, I ask you to withdraw your reference to the National Party.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is that unparliamentary, Madam Acting Deputy President?

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it is a lie.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a reference to the National Party. It is not unparliamentary.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I ask you to withdraw. Senator Ferris, I also ask you to withdraw your comment.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, but it is an untruth to say what Senator Carr said.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I ask you to withdraw your comment on the National Party.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw if you request me to withdraw but I can see nothing unparliamentary about describing the National Party as a bunch of doormats.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I ask you to withdraw.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. This motion here is presented on the basis of a call for bipartisanship. What have we heard from the two government senators? Abuse. We had pitiful and patronising quotations from the President of the Labor Party and an attempt to associate him with the racist and reactionary views of the Bennelong Society. What an outrageous slur, what a shocking thing to say, what a terrible thing for a senator to do in this chamber.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Carr is casting slurs on a very well-established public body and I would ask that he cease doing so.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order. However, Senator Carr, I ask you to moderate your language.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, we have a spurious point of order now being made in an attempt to slur the Labor Party and leading members of the Labor Party. We have heard from Senator Scullion. He asked: why is it so different for Indigenous communities? Why is it so different, he asks! What an extraordinary question for a senator representing the Northern Territory. I put it to you very simply; it is poverty. It is simple—it is poverty. You ask what is so different. Think about the difference between the community on Wadeye—from what I understand, a town of a little under 3,000—and a town down the road, say, Tennant Creek, also a town of about 3,000. One has a number of doctors, one has none. One has numerous telecommunication systems, one does not have a public telephone. One has a high school, one does not. One has a garbage service, one does not. One has basic fire services, one does not. You will be surprised to hear that the one that does not have those things in those examples is the Indigenous town of Wadeye.

So Senator Scullion asks: what is the difference? The fundamental difference is the inherent racism that we have seen being spread throughout this country for generations. Why is it that we have a situation where a town of 3,000 people does not enjoy these basic services? What do we hear from the minister for Aboriginal affairs? We hear that this is a problem created by the government of the Northern Territory. What a load of nonsense. That is a government that has been in office for a couple of years; these are problems that go back a generation, two generations and to the formation of white settlement in the Northern Territory.

So you ask yourself why is it that such circumstances are allowed to continue in this country. Why is it that we have a situation where, in Indigenous communities, there is overcrowding of one house for 17 people? Where else in the country is that sort of situation tolerated? What are the consequences of having overcrowding of that dimension in Indigenous housing? What are the consequences for educational achievement? What are the consequences for the health of the people who live in conditions such as that? What are the consequences for the social development of those communities? I ask a simple question: how is it that we allow those situations to continue?

Senator Scullion asked the question: why is there such a difference? We have a simple proposition here—the figures are very, very clear: Indigenous Australians make up 2.4 per cent of the Australian population but Indigenous people make up 8.5 per cent of the homeless, and 19 per cent of all the people in Australia sleeping rough are Indigenous people. That is 19 per cent for a population that makes up 2.4 per cent of the total population of Australia. ATSIC estimated $2.2 billion is required just to deal with the housing problem, not to mention all the other matters such as education. A recent housing ministers conference—of white housing ministers from across the country—identified the figure as being $3 billion. It is a very rare circumstance where an organisation that was set up and organised to directly assist black people would come up with an estimate less than the estimate made by a mainstream organisation. But that is the situation here.

What is the government talking about? They are talking about providing $6 million for a trial of innovative housing options in Indigenous communities and a budget for services of $150,000 per house. It is a known fact that, for the 18,000 dwellings that we are short in this country for Indigenous people, the cost of providing that would be at least $2.7 billion—on the minister’s own figures. But what does he do? He provides $6 million. So Senator Bartlett is quite right. What we need is constructive engagement. We need a situation where the Commonwealth addresses these issues in a genuine way and does not seek to pass the buck to other levels of government. We have to see that the Commonwealth government—

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston laughs. The Commonwealth government itself has acknowledged that its education programs were underspent by $126 million in 2004-05. What do we see on the weekend? A massive assault on the states, run in every newspaper in the country and based on the housing ministers conference on Friday, with regard to the states’ performance on underspending. It is really the pot calling the kettle black. We have a situation here where the underspend on Indigenous programs is totally unjustified. It is unjustified for the states and it is unjustified for the Commonwealth. This Commonwealth government has a pitiful record in that regard. Senator Scullion likes to blame the Labor government of the Northern Territory. I can recall that it was only a few years ago that here in this chamber and in Senate estimates I was able to highlight that the amount of money that the Liberal-National Party government, the doormats in the National Party, were actually arguing for 48—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, resume your seat. I ask you again to withdraw the comment you have just made.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw whatever comment you want, but we had a situation—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I ask you to withdraw your comment unreservedly.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I unreservedly withdraw any comment you want me to. There was a 48 per cent fee collected by the government of the Northern Territory under your party—a 48 per cent administrative charge for Indigenous programs in the Northern Territory. What sort of nonsense was that? They were claiming that there were administrative costs in education which totalled 48 per cent of the budget. So we have a situation here where there is a long and sorry record of abuse. Inherent in that abuse is a notion that somehow or another Indigenous people are not up to it. They are not up to having the same level of services that the rest of the country is entitled to. They are not up to enjoying medical services, housing and education on the same basis as every other Australian in the country. We do not seem to have a view that equality of opportunity extends to all our citizens—particularly if they are Aboriginal and live in towns such as Wadeye. There are 3,000 people without a doctor or a public telephone booth. How can we possibly justify that in a country of this wealth?

I ask a simple question: what do we expect from a government that seeks to use this as a political device to attack Labor governments? That is what is going on here now. We have a new minister trying to make a name for himself by seeking to criminalise an entire community and seeking to avoid his responsibilities and the fact that there has been a massive underinvestment for 10 long years. We have a situation where Minister Andrews pointed out a simple fact a few months ago. He said that Indigenous people have an average income of between $12,000 and $16,000 per year. Compare that to what the rest of the country enjoys, and you will find a very simple proposition: you cannot fund a private mortgage on an income between $12,000 and $16,000 a year. We have a situation where in Tasmania 52 per cent of Indigenous people own their own home. In the Northern Territory it is only 15 per cent. It is not a question of whether or not you are for or against home ownership. There are statements that are clear facts that this government is seeking to avoid. There are simple propositions here. If you have an income between $12,000 and $16,000 a year, the Commonwealth Bank is not going to rush down and offer you a mortgage. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commence by congratulating Senator Bartlett. I say to all senators in this chamber, and particularly Senator Bartlett, that when any member of the Senate wants to raise an issue in the tenor that he has used then I for one want to speak on the subject and participate in the debate, because it is a vitally important subject.

But the fact is that Senator Bartlett only got halfway. We had the hand-wringing of Senator Bartlett, and we just heard Senator Carr. But the problem is that when you have young children being violently physically and sexually abused, you cannot sit back and say, ‘Let’s have a bipartisan approach.’ There has to be action. Under our Constitution there is only one organisation responsible for the administration of Aboriginal communities in the states, and that is state governments. Police, health, alcohol abuse, petrol sniffing and drugs are matters for the states. Every time I go home to Western Australia I get belted up by the state government saying I am not standing up for WA. The fact is that the WA government—and I will have the proof here in one moment—has lost the plot when it comes to the administration of Aboriginal affairs inside its state boundaries. Let us look at towns and communities. Blackstone, Wingellina, Warburton, Meekatharra, Leonora, Laverton, Kalgoorlie, Coolgardie, Norseman, Carnarvon, Geraldton—all these towns are administered by state governments. The people on the ground are employed by state governments.

In the very short time I have I want to put one issue to the Senate. In 2002 a very learned jurist, an Aboriginal woman, Mrs Gordon, handed down an inquiry. It showed:

Endemic family violence and sexual abuse in Western Australian Aboriginal communities was a “human tragedy that was nothing short of a national disaster”.

And those are the words of the then premier, Geoff Gallop.

A landmark $1 million, six-month inquiry has found the incidence of violence and child abuse in WA Aboriginal communities is “shocking and difficult to comprehend”.

I quote those words.

Tabled in the State Parliament—

the day before 16 August—

the 640-page Gordon inquiry report into how WA government agencies handled complaints of child sex abuse and family violence includes 197 findings and recommendations.

It recommended more coordination between government agencies, more training for staff, including cross-cultural education, and more services, particularly in remote areas. It said a lack of trust between Aboriginal communities and government agencies, especially police, hindered the reporting and follow-up of violence and abuse.

That was the situation back in 2002, when the report was handed down. Senator Carr says it is not the states’ fault. I would have to say I do not know where Senator Carr has been. He displays all of the understanding of most Victorians about what is going on out in the bush in Western Australia. I will quote from an Auditor-General’s report reviewing what happened to the Gordon inquiry. It says:

Three years on from the Gordon Inquiry little is known about the progress of an action plan (with initial funding of $66.5 million and more than 120 initiatives) developed to address the Inquiry’s findings.

‘Little is known about the progress’. This was about child sexual abuse. There were 197 recommendations, and in WA, in November of last year, the Auditor-General said, ‘Little is known about whether we’ve progressed and done anything about this report.’ It continues:

A report by WA Auditor General Des Pearson tabled in Parliament today—

23 November 2005—

reveals that an authoritative account of the progress in implementing the initiatives and the action plan overall does not exist.

This is the level of commitment we have in terms of things like petrol sniffing. To see a two- or three-year-old child walking around with a can of petrol strapped with a piece of wire over its neck so that it sniffs is the most sad, tragic thing any person who has had an education can ever see—and I have seen it. They do not just sniff it; they sip it. It is absolutely unbelievable. Here was a report in 2002 laying out an action plan for what Western Australia needed to do to try to arrest this sort of thing. What has happened? Last year the Auditor-General said, ‘Nothing is happening.’

Do we sit on our hands? Do we sit around saying, ‘We can’t blame the state governments because it’s above politics’? Of course we don’t! We have to do something, Senator Carr. I will quote further what the review says:

The result is that groups formed to monitor and oversight the plan do not have available such basic information as:

• The number of initiatives and how many have been implemented.
• How many are behind schedule.
• Expenditure against budget—

The basic fundamental of good government is expenditure against budget. In other words, you appropriate money to do these things. The state government in Western Australia did not do it. The review continues:

• Estimates on final expenditure and anticipated final completion.
• A summary of the actions taken to resolve delays and barriers to timely implementation.

This is just disgraceful. This is maladministration by a Labor government. It is a blue-ribbon example. It is a gold-medal candidate. They sit there on the other side wringing their hands and saying: ‘This is terrible. You shouldn’t beat up the state governments.’ My goodness! People are dying. Children are dying. How much more do we have to carry on to get through to you people that Mal Brough is doing something in utter desperation? You have sat there wringing your hands. He comes out in utter desperation and you defend the state governments. They are indefensible.

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

This week I celebrate eight years since being sworn in to the Senate. When I look back over that time, I think that not a month has gone by when we have not debated something about Indigenous Australians in this chamber. I pride myself in saying that by now I have got around to most, if not all, of the communities in the Northern Territory at least more than a couple of times. But unlike some of my colleagues from both sides of this chamber I am a bit tired of screaming and yelling about the plight of Indigenous Australians. I am a bit tired of getting angry about it. I have lived with and worked with Indigenous Australians for 25 years in the Northern Territory. My first speech reflects what I think of those people.

For a long time I have said that this country has failed to enhance the talents of Indigenous people. We have failed to capitalise on the strengths of Indigenous people. I am glad that we have a federal minister who now wants to make some noises about this, but I am saddened at the way that he is going about it. Mal Brough behaves like a rabbit in a spotlight. He has suddenly discovered the plight of Indigenous Australians but he is treating it and acting upon it in such a negative way. I was shocked this morning when, on ABC radio in Darwin, preceding my interview, Mal Brough referred to Aboriginal communities as ‘communist enclaves’. What an indictment of Indigenous people! What an outstanding insult to the old and trusted traditional owners of those communities. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of traditional owners—their competence, the faith in and respect for those men that communities have, the many years of learned culture and belief that they carry on behalf of the people and their absolute connection with the land, of which they are the custodians.

I could not have thought of anything more insulting to Indigenous people than what Mal Brough said this morning. I was deeply offended and shocked by his comments this morning. This should not be what we hear from a minister who is seeking to rectify what is happening in Indigenous affairs. This is such a wrong way to go about it. There is no doubt that the plight of Indigenous Australians now has national attention—probably more than it ever has had. But we need to work with these people. We do not need to bully these people. We do not need to back them into a corner and say to them, ‘You’re not going to get basic services unless you give me your land for 99 years.’ That is not the way to treat Indigenous people. It is not the way we treat non-Indigenous people, and Indigenous people should not be treated any differently.

I think governments on both sides of the fence have failed in years gone past. In 27 years of the CLP in the Northern Territory not one secondary school was built in remote communities. Also, under the Hawke-Keating government, every time a state government took Indigenous money off the Commonwealth they took 48c in the dollar and stuck it in their pocket. I have to say that David Kemp, to his credit, along with the work that Bob Collins and I did, got the Commonwealth government to make sure that the states and territories take only 10c of every education dollar for their own pockets.

There is failure across the spectrum. Juvenile diversionary programs were not funded last year by this federal government, and they were a success in the Northern Territory. The Prime Minister promised the people of Port Keats $50,000 for a community patrol, and it has not been delivered. So there are faults everywhere when it comes to underfunding and underservicing.

But there are some wins. In estimates I heard about, the OATSIH are making progress on getting asthma puffers for Indigenous communities. People on CDEP, thanks to the work that some of us have done, can now get access to hearing aids. But there is not a holistic approach. There is not a national plan. There is no concept of walking together. There is no suggestion from Mal Brough that he might take the people in this federal parliament like Senator Scullion and I who talk to these people day in and day out and have a joint bipartisan parliamentary committee that advises and gives input to this government about what is really happening out there. Senator Scullion wants to see as many changes in those communities as I do. I am sick of the blame game, I am sick of the anger and I am sick of the yelling. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.