Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Scullion today, relating to the Northern Territory intervention and comments made by Senator Crossin during the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General’s opening speech on 11 March 2008.

I asked quite a simple question of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in the Senate today. I simply asked him to repudiate the outrageous remarks of Labor’s Senator Crossin. It was a very simple question. It may have even gone to an error. She was a little bit excited with the hubris of winning the election and may have made an error, I am not sure. The context of this particular remark does need some sort of explanation. She said:

So the dramas and charades and the attention that was sought by the previous government in relation to child sexual abuse and child neglect, I believe, were seriously overstated.

Well, that can be a belief—I do not have too much of a problem with that—but I think she is sadly mistaken. I am not denying that is there, but when you have only 50 that statement clearly diminishes. Whether it was accidental or not, I hope that Senator Crossin takes the opportunity in this place to correct the record.

In the answer given by Senator Evans, he indicated that we have a completely bipartisan approach in these matters and that I should simply just get on the program. Labor, of course, completely supports the intervention! With respect, I understand that that was with a couple of particular points that they made, and they made those through the election. But basically they would completely support the intervention. I have to say that, during the election campaign, I met a considerable number of intervention sceptics. In fact, pretty much wherever I went I found people—

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

I didn’t meet too many who voted for you, Nigel.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have more interjections from Senator Crossin. She says—and I quote again:

And I think that the resounding results at the polling booths in the Northern Territory show that. Aboriginal people clearly rejected the methods of the intervention.

I can assure you that not all of Labor believes that they have a bipartisan approach to the intervention. I can tell you that. We have a very serious sceptic in Senator Crossin. I have to say that it seems that, wherever I went in the Northern Territory, she was quite right. There were people saying, ‘Down with Broughie; out with Howard; I’m not going to vote for them,’ because they had been told that a vote for Labor meant a vote against the intervention, make no bones about it. It happened everywhere I went. We make no bones about it; there was not a great deal of support for the intervention in those communities. Labor promised that they would unwind the intervention if they supported Labor. So we have very much a watching brief. We will watch this phase to see whether the rhetoric actually follows the actions.

Of course, in the speech yesterday there was continual gloating about the election win and about the fact that Labor won the vote because they did not support the intervention. That is not a bipartisan approach. In this place Labor has said, ‘We have an absolute bipartisan approach.’ But I can tell you that, out there on the ground, there was nothing like a bipartisan approach. Individuals came to me and said, ‘Well, I’m not voting for you, Nigel, because there is too much change at once,’ and that may have been the case. Individuals were very confused; it was very difficult. They were saying, ‘Labor has said they’re not going to support the intervention so we’re supporting them.’ They are the facts of the matter as I saw it.

In terms of the previous government’s actions, we were never about winning votes in Indigenous communities. It was an act of leadership, a pact of leadership. It was a pact that came from this place because we had bipartisan support. Now, those individuals in the previous government—and I was one of them—were quite proud of the movement of the intervention, because I think it will make a great deal of difference. Senator Crossin bagged the Little children are sacred report. I certainly do not think that she has any support for the outcomes of that. That report was commissioned by the Northern Territory government, and the report was the basis of evidence taken by individual people in communities.

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think I just heard Senator Scullion say that I had ‘bagged’ the Little children are sacred report. My point of order is that Senator Scullion ought to be accurate in his comments and perhaps provide some quotes as to where that is the case, because that is certainly not the case, and never has been the case.

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

There is no point of order.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point in Senator Crossin being in denial about the intervention, and in being in denial about what she said yesterday. It is quite clear—and I will send around the Hansard; I cannot quote for her now—where she says, ‘I will be publicly calling for some more work to be done on the statistics’, which is clearly—(Time expired)

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

I rise to provide some comments on the pathetic and sad contribution by Senator Scullion today. In taking note of answers to questions—I actually thought that was what we did in this chamber—I thought that the opposition’s time in this half-hour was to make comment about answers to questions provided by senators, not to have a personal attack on members of the backbench, or to comment on speeches that had been made the day before. The comments Senator Scullion referred to are in my address-in-reply speech. If the coalition in this chamber are grappling so desperately with what it is like to be in opposition, well, so be it. If these are the tactics they want to endorse, let’s go for it. I am happy to stand here hour after hour and debate what is happening at the moment in the Northern Territory in relation to the intervention. What you cannot accept, Senator Scullion, and your party cannot accept—

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

Senator Crossin, your remarks should be addressed through the chair.

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

is that, in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari, we obtained a 52 per cent endorsement for the Labor Party and its policies at the last election. Your vote plummeted to 35 per cent. So I say to you, Senator Scullion, ‘Get over it, and move on.’ There was a resounding endorsement for the Labor Party and its policies at the last election. At the Yirrkala booth, 292 voters to four; at Galiwinku—where your minister had flown in and out of that community day after day—they were lined up 50 deep, hour after hour. You were there and witnessed—

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

Senator Crossin, your remarks are to the chair.

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

hour after hour, people lining up, hundreds at a time. When handed CLP ‘how to vote’ cards, what did they do? They threw them on the ground. Why did they support us? They supported us because we said we would change the intervention. There were aspects of the intervention we took to the election. We said that we would retain CDEP—and we have done that. We said we would look at the permit system—and we are doing that, although I read today that you cannot cop that. You are going to block that legislation, despite that fact that Indigenous people in the Territory voted to change the permit system back to the way it was. We put a set of policies to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, and they were endorsed.

What did I say yesterday? You are so poor at doing your research for question time that you just cannot deliver the blow, can you? My comments yesterday were quoted from the estimates transcript—from Lesley Podesta, who is the head of OATSI. Senator Adams asked Ms Podesta how many people had had the health checks. Nearly 6,000. How many of those had been referred to Family and Community Services? The answer was 50. Why have they been referred to Northern Territory FACS? In the Northern Territory, there is a range of issues. We do not break it down. Is it child sexual abuse? Maybe. But generally, Ms Podesta said, it was to find alternative care or because there were problems within the family unit.

Therefore, you have to say to yourself, the Howard government intervened in the lives of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory in such an abrasive and drastic manner on the basis of the Little children are sacred report. Research shows you and evidence shows you that, to date, that may not have been, and probably is not, the case. It was never the case. The intervention was there for political reasons, but we supported it because people in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory do need the support; they do need this commitment; they do need assistance to have more houses, to have more children checked; to have in those communities the massive injections of funds that you so sadly neglected in your 11 long years in government.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Crossin spoke about estimates. We had a very good discussion on the Northern Territory intervention at estimates. I believe that the intervention team has consulted very well. The health checks have surely helped Northern Territory people and the children in these communities. In their update of 7 March 2008, the intervention team states that 65 remote communities have had child health checks undertaken. Eleven town camp regions have been visited by the child health check teams. Surely, this is all about consultation. As at 5 March 2008, there have been 7,622 Northern Territory child health checks completed, and a total number of child health checks—including medical benefits scheme checks—of approximately 9,300. This must be helping. There are seven child health check teams deployed, and the child health checks are being performed by local Aboriginal medical services in various regions.

We also have the general business managers in there helping the communities. As of this month, there are 52 general business managers employed. When all of them are employed, 72 communities will be serviced by a general business manager. This must help the population, including the children. With regard to welfare reform, there are currently 26 community employment brokers in place providing services to 45 communities. Income management is in place in 25 communities and associated outstations in four town camp regions. Six thousand, five hundred and forty-three people are currently being income managed. This must be an improvement for those families and for those children who have gone without. There are a total of 28 community stores licensed, with 20 stores operating under store-specific licences and eight stores operating under one Outback Stores corporate licence. A total of 636 Australian government jobs have been created to date. This is very good news and I believe consultation has helped to achieve this. We have a new police presence in 18 communities, and there are currently 35 new interstate and 18 new Northern Territory police deployed. There are also the community clean-ups. The clean-up program has commenced in 40 remote communities. One thousand, six hundred and sixteen properties have been surveyed and made safe, and 351 minor repairs have been completed. There are currently 32 project management and trade contractor teams engaged under the community clean-up program. In consultation, Northern Territory towns are really being looked after.

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I do have a concern about the permit system being reinstated. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, said that restoring the system was important because it helped keep grog smugglers and paedophiles out of remote Indigenous communities. Well, they were there when the permit system was in use. Surely the system that we as a government had in place would have opened up the community so that other people could come in and ensure that these practices did not continue. I feel the permit system did not protect Indigenous communities, so why go back to it? Also, the ban on pay TV porn in remote Indigenous communities should not be voluntary, as Labor’s legislation intended. According to the Little children are sacred report, pay TV porn was readily accessed by kids and was a significant part of grooming kids for sexual activity. In conclusion, I do believe that we are going forwards and not backwards and I commend all those involved with the Northern Territory intervention team.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How interesting that in its first 100 days the government finds itself facing questions in question time from opposition senators making up stories about Senator Crossin’s quotes. To me, it is sad evidence that the opposition, the coalition, are now trying to reconstitute this issue in a way that is divisive. I find it quite hard to believe that in the current circumstances, where we have a commitment from the coalition in opposition to work with us on the development of policy for our Indigenous people, we have such a tardy and shallow effort here in the chamber today to use the plight of many Indigenous children in such a divisive way, particularly evoking comments by Senator Crossin which, if taken in context, are entirely correct in her analysis and her contribution to this important debate.

I think it is important to note the progress that the Rudd Labor government has made with respect to Indigenous Australia. In its first 100 days, the Rudd Labor government has many, many things to be proud of, not least being the delivery on behalf of the Australian parliament of a national apology to Indigenous people, particularly the stolen generations. We have also announced—and this is a very critical point for Senator Scullion to take note of—the proposed establishment of a joint policy commission, to be chaired by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to develop remote Indigenous housing solutions.

Another initiative is the establishment of the Indigenous Australian Early Development Index, which will enable assessment of key aspects of children’s early development essential to their readiness for learning at school. Legislation introduced to the parliament on 14 February will target improvements to Indigenous education, including a commitment to an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory and funding for an additional 18 classrooms. There will be an additional $49.3 million for substance and alcohol rehabilitation and treatment services for Indigenous communities, particularly in remote areas—and so on.

What we have from the opposition, unfortunately, is a very tacky ploy today to once again introduce the politics of division, of the wedge, on this critical issue. I thought we were past that. I do recall Dr Nelson saying on the day of the apology that the opposition was past that. Sadly, the senators representing the opposition in this place did not get that message. To take up another point raised by the opposition in this taking note debate: there were differences in the Labor Party position on the Northern Territory Indigenous intervention leading up to the election. I find it quite astounding and misleading that Senator Scullion would say in this place that somehow there had been a change in our position. We had key differences. We did say we would retain CDEP, we did say we would look at the permit system—and we note that the coalition is going to oppose that legislation that has now been introduced—and we did say we were going to review it after one year. They are all legitimate issues, no doubt voted on by Northern Territory voters with the intervention issue on their minds. I say to my colleagues in the Senate: this is not an issue for tacky division to be played out. We are past that. It is the obligation of any senator in this place to approach this very challenging and critically important issue with due gravitas, considering the bipartisan nature of the challenge that now sits before us all.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To take up the last point made by Senator Lundy, I agree that tacky divisions, as Senator Lundy put it, need to be avoided if we are to proceed on a bipartisan basis to address the problems of disadvantage and child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. But what is obvious from the remarks that have been made today in the chamber by Senator Crossin, yesterday in the chamber by Senator Crossin and previously on the public record by Senator Crossin is that there are obviously divisions within the Australian Labor Party about exactly what the Northern Territory intervention actually represents.

Let us be perfectly clear: there are widely divergent views within the Labor government about just what this intervention is all about and, indeed, about whether the intervention itself is a good thing. We can see that plainly on the record from what Senator Crossin has had to say. I quote the words that she has used—this is not making up what she has had to say; this what she actually said:

... the dramas and the charades and the attention that was sought by the previous government in relation to child sexual abuse and child neglect, I believe, were severely overstated.

She thinks that our concern about child sexual abuse and child neglect in the Northern Territory was overstated. What does Minister Macklin think about it? On 16 June last year, just after the Little children are sacred report was tabled, she had this to say:

I don’t think anyone knew just how serious it was. What’s so important about this report is that it really has lifted the lid on just how horrific the levels of child abuse are. If there is one good thing that has come out of this report, it really does expose the dreadful level of child abuse that’s taking place.

Which is the Labor Party’s view? Is it the view of Minister Macklin or the view of Senator Crossin? These are not, under any reasonable reading, consistent views about the basis for the Northern Territory intervention.

The fact is that there is a subterranean view within the Labor Party, which occasionally comes to the surface in comments like those made by Senator Crossin yesterday and again today, that fundamentally rejects the basis on which the Northern Territory intervention has been mounted. The fact is that there are some in the government who would like—right now—to backslide on the intervention, who would cheerfully trash the entire exercise if they could. And what Senator Crossin had to say were not just the remarks of a single senator. They were the remarks of a senator who represents a vein of opinion within the government which needs to be, with great respect, understood and, if that view is going to prevail, that needs to be indicated now.

I want there to be bipartisan support for the policies of intervention which the previous government put in place. But I also think that the opposition and the government and all of their members need to commit in totality to what it is that was proposed and executed in that intervention. And it means the kinds of comments that Senator Crossin has made in this place, which, frankly, severely undermine the very basis for the intervention, need to be repudiated by the chamber itself and particularly by the leadership of the government. What Senator Evans had to say in the chamber today was to reaffirm that the government believes in the Northern Territory intervention and the basis for it. I welcome those comments, but I ask Senator Evans and the leadership of the government to indicate clearly whether that is the view of the government as a whole.

Senator Crossin made this remark yesterday:

Aboriginal people clearly rejected the methods of the intervention.

In doing so she drew attention to the vote by Indigenous people against the coalition in the federal election. The question raised by that remark is: if she thinks that Aboriginal people rejected the methods of intervention, does she reject the methods of intervention as well? I do not think there is any doubt that she did, that she does and that others in the Labor Party do.

We are entitled to know whether those views are minority views which are not representative of the government or whether they represent what is going to change the policy of this government as this intervention is rolled out. That is my fear—that we are seeing here the signalling of a change in government policy as this intervention proceeds. And we need to know now whether that is actually going to be the case or whether this is simply the wild and inaccurate remark of a single senator, made in haste and repented at leisure.

Question agreed to.