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

I want to speak today about a range of factors impacting on and relating to Indigenous Australians. A few weeks back we had a lot of events, ceremonies and commemorations for the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report into the stolen generation. It is important that we examine those issues not just at those times but that we continue that debate past those particular anniversaries.

There is another anniversary coming up this week that I also wanted to draw attention to as it is particularly relevant to my own state of Queensland. It is the 50th anniversary of the strike that was held on Palm Island in June 1957. There is a ceremony being held on Palm Island this Friday, 15 June. The strike involved seven men who stood up to the manager of Palm Island. Back in those days it was run basically as a detention camp with a managerial superintendent who had total control over the lives of the people who were forced there. Those seven men—Billy Congoo, Albie Geia, Eric Lymburne, Sonny Sibley, Willie Thaiday and Gordon Tapau and George Watson—simply stood up for basic decency, for equal rights and for a fair go. This strike marked a turning point in Indigenous-government relations in Queensland. It was one of the key times when Indigenous people stood up for those simple rights by refusing to continue to be exploited. As a consequence, they were dragged away in chains—in front of their children and their families—and they were exiled from their community. It was done clearly as an attempt to show an example to the others. Fifty years later no apology has been given to these people’s families for the treatment they received. It was an event of bravery and of significance that is worth noting and acknowledging and learning from. It is important to remember these events, the reasons why they occurred and the way in which they were handled.

It points to—and once again gives me a reason to remind the Senate of—other areas of unfinished business that stretch back to 1957 and even before then. One of those issues, which I spoke on yesterday in this chamber, is that of stolen wages—entitlements for Indigenous people that were never given to them for work that they did. This has clearly been established; it is beyond dispute. Yet the so-called compensation or reparations offer provided—certainly in Queensland—has been derisory. There were decades of labour where people’s recompense was withheld or only partially provided. There have been only minimal reparations for that decades later—a maximum of $4,000 with a requirement that you sign away your rights for any sort of further legal action. That is inadequate and it is grotesquely insulting. There is still a need for further action there from the Queensland government, as there is from some other state governments. These governments need to do more to determine the extent of similar practices. I repeat my call of yesterday for the federal government to respond to the unanimous recommendations contained in the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that was tabled in December last year. Six months later it has still not been responded to.

There is also the issue of unfinished business from the stolen generation. It is not enough just to acknowledge what happened, important though that is. The Bringing them home report contained a package of recommendations, many of which have never been acted on and many of which were specifically rejected. One of those also related to compensation. Monetary compensation was a key component of some of the recommendations. It, in itself, is a significant step in the healing process, and that is a significant part of improving the health and other life opportunities for Indigenous people. We cannot treat issues like Indigenous health separately from some of the causal factors. Everybody today has to take individual responsibility for the circumstance they are in, but you cannot ignore the factors that led to the circumstance they are in. That includes the massive harm that was done and the significant loss in relation to cultural knowledge, relationship to land, loss of connection to family—both parents and wider family—and impairment to access to economic opportunities. That loss is intergenerational; it extends beyond just the people who were subjected to it to the families and to the wider communities. There has been no adequate recognition of that and there has been no compensation for that.

I contrast that with an offer, which I welcome, from the Queensland government a couple of weeks ago for compensation for children who were raised in government institutions. It is a flow-on from the Leneen Forde inquiry that, some years back, looked at children who were in orphanages and other government institutions. There was clear evidence that major harm was done to them. The Queensland government is to be congratulated for acting on that. It is a reminder to other state governments that have yet to act that they should do the same. But that offer, which I understand goes to as much as a $40,000 payment to some individuals, does not extend to Indigenous children who were raised in institutionalised circumstances on government reserves. They are excluded and yet the evidence, I argue, suggests that many of them were much more significantly harmed. I contrast that offer in that circumstance to the derisory response to the stolen wages issue and to the other separate legal battles that still continue today for conscious, knowing underpayment of wages in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act, after it came into force in the 1970s. Those cases are still being resolved and still going through the courts. When they go through the courts, we are often finding individuals who are entitled to payments of tens of thousands of dollars individually. Yet government wants to somehow put proper reparation and compensation to Indigenous people off to one side and to throw them what is a derisory $4,000.

This leads quite directly to some issues that were raised in the third Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage by the Productivity Commission. These issues are all interconnected, which is why we should not separate them out so much. The timing of that report is perhaps appropriate in showing how much unfinished business there is and how much more work there is to do. When it was brought down it flowed on from all of those activities marking the 40th anniversary of the referendum. It contains a lot of damning statistics. And it is not just a matter of statistics; it is worth remembering that this is about individual human beings who have as much right to life’s opportunities as every other Australian and every other person. One of the most concerning aspects of the report is that, in many cases, not only are the statistical indicators still bad—we all know that—but there has been little progress in many areas. On the positive side, the report also points to things that are working, and I think that is important as well. In amongst so many negative stories there are also so many positives. We must not forget that; we must look to what works—and the report attempts to do that as well.

I will note a few aspects of the report. In 2006, of the 322 discrete Indigenous communities with a reported usual population of 50 or more people, 51 per cent had experienced water supply interruptions in the previous 12 months and 40 per cent had experienced sewage overflows or leakages in the previous 12 months. In 2004-05, 25 per cent of Indigenous people aged 15 years and over lived in overcrowded housing. When you go to very remote areas, that figure increases to 63 per cent.

In the area of Indigenous imprisonment, between 2000 and 2006 imprisonment rates increased by 32 per cent. After adjusting for age differences, Indigenous people are 13 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to be imprisoned. Indigenous juveniles are 23 times more likely to be detained than non-Indigenous juveniles. In subjecting young people to some of the experiences of the juvenile justice system, particularly if detention is involved—and jail, sadly, for 17-year-olds in Queensland—we all know you are already a long way behind the eight ball in trying to prevent some of the further problems that occur, whether they relate to health, violence or other factors. Yet Indigenous young people are still 23 times more likely to be detained.

Regarding the simple issue of individual income, in the period from 2002 to 2004-05 there was a relatively small increase in the equivalised household income for Indigenous people. It rose by 10 per cent from $308 to $340. That is welcome, but it still compares to an average for non-Indigenous households of $618—almost double.

Higher education success rates have increased between 2001 and 2005, and that should be welcomed. However, in 2006, 21 per cent of 15-year-old Indigenous people were not participating in school education, compared to five per cent of non-Indigenous 15-year-olds. Again, I would note the successes. There has been success with increasing retention rates for Indigenous students in some schools where specific programs have been introduced around greater recognition of Indigenous culture. These programs are being shown to work, and they go in the opposite direction to some of the neo-assimilation rhetoric that has become fashionable in some quarters recently.

We still have the appalling discrepancies in health. There was an increase in the last four years in the number of long-term health conditions for which Indigenous people reported higher rates—higher rates of asthma, diabetes, high sugar levels and kidney disease. Of course, the key measure of life expectancy itself is still estimated to be around 17 years lower on average than for the total Australian population.

I refer to a recent article in the Medical Journal of Australia from 21 May, which pointed to research indicating that control over land is a positive influence on Indigenous health. There are connections here; we need to remember them when we deal with some of these separate debates. The key determinants for the general application of good Indigenous governance, whilst allowing for unique cultures of different organisations and communities, include leadership, governing institutions, resources, capacity building, cultural match and self-determination. They are still found to be key determinants—when viewed not in isolation but together. There is also the importance of how government engages with Indigenous communities and organisations.

It is important to talk of control of land, and I refer to the recent announcement by the state government in Queensland of legislation that should enable greater control for Indigenous communities on Cape York. This is very welcome. It involves a range of measures, including formal recognition of native title in the Wild Rivers Act and an Indigenous economic and employment package, including confirmation of ranger positions and support for Indigenous arts, culture and tourism enterprises. I call on the federal government to back up some of these measures, and I point to the recent Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee report into national parks, which called for further funding for World Heritage and for further involvement of Indigenous people in management. One of the areas I am particularly pleased with in the Cape York package is the preparedness to require joint management of national park areas with traditional owners. That has been a real barrier and something for which I have pushed for a long time.

I note some positive commentary about that, including from Noel Pearson and others in the Cape York Indigenous community. I am pleased about that, but I am concerned about the continued attacks on the Wilderness Society, and particularly individuals within the Wilderness Society. Key campaigners in the Wilderness Society have been amongst those who I know have been pushing for more Indigenous control in land management and more economic opportunities for Indigenous people in caring for country. There have been differences of opinion over the wild rivers issue. I do not have a problem with people expressing differences of opinion, but it appears to me that those differences over wild rivers have been sorted out. The Wilderness Society has welcomed this package, and certainly Noel Pearson has also welcomed the control over water there.

I would like particularly to mention Anthony Esposito and Lyndon Schneiders, who personally have been attacked publicly a number of times in the media. I think that is unfair, frankly. There can be differences of opinion, but if I had to point to two conservationists in Australia who have focused over decades on trying to get greater awareness of the needs of Indigenous people, I would point to them. Apart from being unfair, I think it also presents a risk. If there are others in the conservation movement who are not as committed to Indigenous issues and they see committed people getting publicly attacked—whatever their mistakes may have been; I have no doubt about their commitment—it really runs the risk of those others saying, ‘It’s not really worth our bother; it’s too hard.’ These are difficult areas, but you need to support those people who make the effort to engage with the issues. I call on all parties in that region to work together— (Time expired)