Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I had uttered one sentence on the matter of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 before we went to government business at 12.45 pm today. I will continue, but this will not be a long contribution.

The amendments proposed in this bill by the government relate to a number of issues: the viewing of R18+ programming, the transport of prohibited materials through prescribed areas, the status of roadhouses as community stores in some remote communities and the resumption of the permit system. These amendments seek to make changes to the special measures to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory that were introduced by the former coalition government through the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 and the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Act 2007.

I want to speak briefly this afternoon about the particular changes the government’s amendments will make to the permit system in the Northern Territory. They will repeal the changes to the permit system that were put in place by the former government in order to give public access to certain Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The changes have been in force since February of this year. The government’s amendments will reinstate the permit system for major Aboriginal communities, while enabling the minister to allow access to certain people, such as journalists.

A number of my colleagues in the coalition have spoken already about the negative impact the reinstatement of the permit system will have, particularly on women and children in remote Aboriginal communities, and our concerns in relation to that. I do not think that the seriousness of this impact can be taken lightly, and we certainly do not do so. From some reporting over recent times, it seems that as a result of the intervention—especially the introduction of income management and the rollback of the permit system—after experiencing well-documented abuse and violence and poverty, in some cases, women in remote Aboriginal communities are finally finding their voice and the ability to assert some greater control over their own lives and, consequently, the lives of their children. In fact, this week on Tuesday, 25 November, I was interested to read in the Age newspaper some writing by Russell Skelton on the positive impact the intervention, including the abolition of the permit system, has had on the lives of women through remote areas in the Northern Territory, transferring power—I suppose that would be the word—away from the ‘big men’, as they were described in that article and others, of these communities. Professor Marcia Langton, foundation chair in Australian Indigenous studies at the Melbourne university, has called it ‘big bunga’ politics. That sort of politics has allowed relatively small cliques of very powerful men to assert their control over communities without the sorts of checks and balances that we might expect. There are many reports of the abuse and the violation of process and the disadvantage that have flourished under that, with patronage the decisive factor in the allocation of jobs, of houses, of cars and of other benefits.

The abolition of the permit system by the previous government’s legislation was part of the means of addressing that situation—of shining some light into those areas and on, most importantly, those leaders. It put them in a position where they were not able to avoid the scrutiny of the management of resources in the same way. Now, as should be the case, the leaders in these communities have to account for the way that government funding, particularly, is managed and one would hope, consequently, put the security and the safety of their people and the communities first.

An equally important consequence of this aspect of the previous government’s legislation was to allow a door to open a little further to greater economic development in some of these communities. It seems to me to be logical to contemplate that long-term security and viability of remote and regional communities is absolutely tied to effective development. I cannot see how it is in fact logical to close them off. By abolishing the permit system, amongst other impacts, the former coalition government endeavoured to give the communities a greater chance at economic development. Any decision to reinstate this permit system by this government in such communities would be a disappointing setback to the possibility of this economic development.

That is not just my view or our view in the coalition. There have been a number of reports in this calendar year and more in recent months and weeks about these issues. In the Australian in January this year former president of the Australian Labor Party Mr Warren Mundine said:

If we are looking at building economies in these communities then we need to have a free flow of people to create commercial activities. The permit system didn’t stop crime. In fact, if you look at all of the reports that have come out in the last few years, crime has flourished under the permit system, so it’s a fallacy to say that it helps law-and-order problems. It really embedded these problems because some powerful people were able to get away with things without being watched.

He further said:

If you want to create a real economy you’re going to have to have more commercial activity happening and that happens by allowing people to flow in and out of places.

I think the government would do well to listen to those words and words of others who have raised similar sorts of concerns.

I wanted to make a couple of other comments in relation to economic development and to the potential for benefits that go far beyond the security and prosperity of remote and regional Aboriginal communities. An Access Economics report commissioned by Reconciliation Australia and released in August this year found, in relation to the economic impact of Indigenous disadvantage, that, if the health, educational and economic circumstances of Indigenous Australians improved to match those of the Australian average, ‘government revenue in 2029 would be $4.6 billion higher than otherwise’ and ‘government expenditure in 2029 in key portfolios relevant to Indigenous Australians would be $3.7 billion lower than otherwise’. I do not think a government can afford to be insensitive to those sorts of compelling figures, nor to any step that might help in getting even closer than we currently are.

I began my remarks today on the need to ensure the safety of women and children in remote communities. I want to finish with some brief words about the other changes that the bill will make that could impact negatively on those children the intervention was in fact designed to protect.

The government’s amendments will change the nature of bans on pornographic material in prescribed areas and on the transport of such materials through prescribed areas. In communities where it is reported that children do remain at risk from a range of factors and where there are serious concerns about levels of functionality, there is no reason at this time to be loosening these sorts of restrictions. It seems to me to be a regressive step and one which I regard very seriously.

As has been stated in the other place and by other speakers to this legislation in this chamber, the opposition’s amendments reflect these concerns. I will reiterate those points and will of course call on the government to adopt them. The opposition has called on the government to impose a blanket ban on all pornographic material in prescribed areas and to prohibit the transport of pornographic material through any prescribed areas. We further urge the government to leave in place the permit system amendments, which have enabled greater access to public land.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to contribute to the debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, but I want to confine my remarks simply to the permit system, the abolition of which I think was a step in the right direction. The provisions of this bill, which effectively bring back the permit system, are in the worst interests of Indigenous people and indeed of all Australians.

I refer the chamber to the Australian Crime Commission’s report into the abuses that occurred in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. The task force chief said as recently as June of this year that the permit system had been put in place to keep wrongdoers out of communities but history had clearly shown that it protected the wrongdoers. Powerful clans and families had manipulated the system to prevent the scrutiny that I and the majority of sensible legislators think is necessary to give these communities, particularly young people in them, a bit of a chance.

It almost seems that governments have been prepared to accept this permit system because it meant that nobody really got in to see what was happening in these remote communities. I ask this question: if the permit system was so amazingly good, how is it that some of the worst prevalence of criminal behaviour in the world has occurred in these prescribed communities, which are hidden behind a veil of silence? There is also a question of basic human rights in relation to the reintroduction of permits. Under the changes proposed by the Labor Party, Indigenous organisations such as land councils will decide who can come and who can go, indicating who Indigenous people can associate with and who they can do business with. The right of free association that other Australians enjoy is going to be denied to Indigenous communities. It seems to me quite contradictory that when the emphasis is on creating proper jobs for Indigenous people, for improving communications and encouraging cottage industries and tourism, that, rather than turning these isolated communities into open communities engaged in commercial enterprises, the permit system puts up the shutters. Nowhere else in Australia would this fundamental denial of the right of association and interaction be tolerated. Yet legislators and bureaucrats in Canberra, the people who always know what is best for Indigenous people, are going to put in place this system that will deny Indigenous people that basic right of association.

Just a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of re-engaging with the Hon. Fred Chaney, who, you will recall, has amongst his many other pursuits an involvement with Reconciliation Australia. We met up while looking at remote desert communities. Mr Chaney is a former—and I think well-regarded by everyone—federal Aboriginal affairs minister. Mr Chaney launched a campaign to draw attention to remote Australia, a region which he described as a failed state awash with dysfunction, violence and illiteracy. Mr Chaney quite perceptively said that, when it came to Indigenous policy, nothing good ever came out of Canberra. I fear that this government legislation is going to again give proof to those prophetic words.

On a different note, I also find it quite offensive that any Australian should be denied the right to go to any other part of Australia. I do not for a moment suggest that anyone should have the right to invade my house and my background—although they do, I might say, but I reject them having that right; it is criminals who do that. Your home is your private castle, and the same is the case for Indigenous people. Certainly their traditional lands, their cultural lands, their homelands, should be protected. But it seems to me offensive that access to roads into a public community and that access to public assets like schools, halls, police stations and shops in these areas should be denied to other Australians. It seems to me that preventing certain people from going to certain parts of Australia that are public property is a way that Australia should not head.

Mr Acting Deputy President, you might recall that, in Mr Brough’s original legislation, there was a distinction made between those public areas and private areas. I urge the government to think very seriously about that and readopt those provisions that Mr Brough inserted. I am searching for my notes which list those. Not being able to put my hand on them, I refer senators to the original list of areas that were addressed in Mr Brough’s legislation.

Under the Brough reforms, permits were no longer required to travel to Aboriginal townships on designated roads. Sacred sites and traditional lands were protected, and access to them was made strictly off-limits. These were the protected lands and sacred sites—traditional lands. But in the run-up to the last election—and I quote the respected journalist Russel Skelton here:

… the ALP campaigned vigorously, and dishonestly, against the reform, saying grog-runners and art carpetbaggers would swamp communities and sacred sites would be trampled on by insensitive and unknowing tourists.

It was, as Mr Skelton pointed out, nonsense but it did win support for the ALP. It is the sort of typical populist mantra that you would run around in an electorate like the Northern Territory. No doubt the Labor Party did that and did it in other parts of Australia and succeeded in that populist promise on the basis of improper facts.

Under the proposed legislation, as I understand it, only journalists, some public servants and police will be exempt. Everybody else will be required to get a permit from an Indigenous organisation in order to go there, although I understand that, under this bill, the minister has power to allow people in. She has already indicated that she will give permission to journalists to enter. If journalists get into these communities by grant of the minister, one wonders how constrained those journalists might be in what they write. It seems to me unclear whether the grant given by the minister will be given to any journalist for any day or whether the approval will be given on a restricted and selective basis. Perhaps the minister, in responding to this speech in the second reading debate, might be able to elaborate on that.

Who else will be able to go into these closed Indigenous communities? I have seen somewhere in my research that political candidates can go in. Isn’t that lovely? No other Australian has the right to go there, but if you happen to be running for a political party then, sure, that is all right—you can slip into the community; you can promise what you like. I am aware of some of the promises that have been made in the Northern Territory by candidates in both federal and state elections. I have to say—putting this as delicately as I can—that some of the promises made by ALP candidates at the state and federal levels have been very ‘puffed’, if I can say that in polite-ish sort of way. No other Australian can get there. They cannot go to these communities, but political candidates can. Tell me the sense in that.

The whole purpose of this legislation was to address the evils that we became aware of a few years ago. According to the head of the Northern Territory Police Association, there is no evidence that the permit system hinders illegal behaviour. He is quoted as saying:

The permit system does not stop grog-running or sexual assault. It did not stop these things in the past; it will not stop them in the future. These are policing issues unrelated to the permit system.

Quite frankly, there is no moral, legal or other justification for imposing this permit system on these parts of Australia. Others in this debate have quoted—and the figures are readily available—that:

… grog smuggling is largely conducted by indigenous men who live in the dry communities and not by outsiders. If there has been a fall in the incidence of grog smuggling, and that is questionable, it is because there are more police on the ground to enforce bans.

Police and authorities directly involved have said this on a number of occasions. Plainly, the grog-running problem is a problem not about outsiders but about insiders.

I think a lot of the bill is fatally flawed, especially that part dealing with permits. The original system of doing away with the permits was made to ensure that normal interactions of society can occur, including external scrutiny. It would allow individual Aboriginal people to engage with and benefit from a market economy without the hindrance of someone else telling them who they can deal with and who can come into their communities and cut a deal with them. It would distinguish, under the Brough legislation, between communal or public space and private space on Aboriginal land.

That is the same as it is in the community I live in in rural North Queensland. There is a public area, such as roads, parks and shopping centres, where anyone can go and then there is my private area—my house and my yard. Nobody is allowed there unless I invite them. The legislation as it now stands, which this legislation is now trying to overturn, ensures open access to public space, including townships and related roads. The legislation as it now stands protects the privacy of those private spaces, including residences and most Aboriginal land. It respects Aboriginal culture on traditional lands, particularly through the support it gives to the protection of sacred sites and ceremonies. The legislation as it currently stands, which this bill is trying to alter, continues to allow for effective land management by Aboriginal groups. It was to be simple to administer, preferably by government, to ensure transparency and accountability.

I conclude by simply asking again: if the permit system is so good, why have we become aware of so much trouble there in recent years? That alone would seem to me to suggest that we should try anything else. I urge the Labor Party, the Greens and the crossbenchers to understand the failures of the past. We should not fall into the same old trap of thinking that we in Canberra know what is best for Indigenous people. We have to understand Indigenous traditions, as we understand the Scottish traditions of my ancestors. My ancestors used to wear funny skirts around their waists, instead of manly trousers, until they were cleared from the Highlands by those horrible English all those centuries ago. But I and the rest of modern society have moved on. I no longer wear a skirt—well, only occasionally, and with St Andrew’s Day coming up if I can borrow one I might wear a kilt—but it is something you do on traditional occasions. Nobody can ever take that from me and I am not suggesting that that should happen to any people, most particularly Indigenous people.

You cannot live in the past. You have to accept that the world moves on. We live in an age of being able to get from Sydney to London in 18 hours on a regular commercial aeroplane these days. Life has moved on. Technology has moved on. Science has moved on. We have all benefited from that. When I say we have all benefited from that, I mean we on the outside have benefited from it. I cannot see that Indigenous people have shared too much in the benefits of science and good fortune and wealth that the rest of Australia has seen. What we have done in the past has not proved to have been very good. It has been done with the very best of intentions by those doing it, but it simply has not worked.

I had a conversation just recently with Mr Mundine and the Bishop of the Northern Territory about the fact that we are doing the wrong thing if we are trying to quarantine Indigenous people from modern life and all the benefits it can give them. Indeed, the retrograde bill before us, which puts back into place a permit system which will lock up the problems that we all know are there, is just wrong. I plead with the Labor Party and the crossbenchers and the Greens not to allow this bill to proceed but to go back to a system which will allow Indigenous people to be part of the world in which we all live.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just over a year ago, both Labor and the coalition agreed to put in place a range of emergency measures in response to the problems of child sexual abuse confirmed in the Little children are sacred report. The legislation was a sweeping and far-reaching response to a terrible problem and it went more broadly to addressing Aboriginal disadvantage. It relied on a momentum powered by widespread revulsion across the Australian community at numerous cases of child abuse. The Little children are sacred report found evidence of child sexual abuse in every one of the 45 communities visited. Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, particularly children, deserve better. They deserve a life that is free from child abuse and free of alcohol abuse and illegal drugs—a life that offers hope of an escape from poverty through good education, health care and housing.

Last year the Senate agreed the situation in the Northern Territory was an emergency and passed legislation that was a radical change in policy direction and that would have long-term implications for Aboriginal people and their communities. The concern last year, when the emergency response measures were about to be put in place, was that the measures would alienate some Aboriginal people and increase the gulf between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. However, Family First came to the conclusion—and still believes—that we should not and must not leave things as they were when children were at risk from abuse. That is the reason Family First supported the previous government’s sweeping and far-reaching proposals for change.

A key part of the emergency response involved removing the permit system so that visitors to the communities would not have to obtain a permit. It was removed as part of the previous government’s national Indigenous emergency intervention to stop child abuse in remote communities. How disappointing, then, that the Rudd government has failed to fully remove the permit system, potentially leaving children’s lives at risk. In February this year the requirement for permits to visit 73 Indigenous townships was abolished, but the government did not remove all the permits on the access roads. Therefore, no-one can use the access roads to get to the communities. Unless you fly in or go by boat, you cannot get to many of those communities. How can we judge whether the parliament’s decision last year to remove permits has worked or not, when some access restrictions remain?

Many in the parliament have argued over the last few months that the permit system effectively shuts off Indigenous communities and creates barriers between Australians. Again I say: how do we know that this is the case? We do not, because the Rudd government was unwilling to test it thoroughly. For those of us who are considering the permit system, that decision has robbed us of an informed choice, because the information coming from this trial is flawed.

I have seen firsthand the challenges facing Indigenous communities, including the deeply entrenched problems of alcohol abuse and child abuse, and the hopelessness that many of these people feel. It was shocking and profoundly sad—particularly the stories of children who have been caught up in domestic disputes fuelled by alcohol and subjected to horrific sexual abuse. However, alcohol is a huge problem not just in the Northern Territory but right across Australia. In the Northern Territory, nearly every conversation ends up being about grog. Australia has a huge drinking problem in the broader community, but what I saw in the Aboriginal community is much worse. The sheer acceptance of the alcohol problem by most people in Aboriginal communities is staggering. It seems to me that this is ‘just the way it is’. The term ‘dry community’ seems farcical when, outside the gates of these communities, you see dozens of empty tinnies littering the entrance as you drive in.

The enormity of the problems I saw was overwhelming. The Aboriginal people and the welfare workers who are trying to make a difference all sounded tired and worn out. People told me government departments were part of the problem because of the lack of care, lack of action and lack of funds. It is horrifying to contemplate that the next generation is already being condemned to an endless cycle of abuse. It is shameful that this exists in our country and that we have allowed it to happen. I believe this is an issue that affects all Australians. When our Prime Minister said sorry to Indigenous Australians, it began the process of healing the long years of pain between white and Aboriginal Australians. But, since then, not enough has happened. Children are still at risk from abuse and exposure to pornography and alcohol. Poverty remains an issue. Violence and despair are a way of life.

Will the Prime Minister be apologising to these communities in years to come when abuse and violence continue to fester? I do not want to give the impression that governments are responsible for everything. Clearly, Aboriginal people and their communities have to bear some responsibility too, but they need a helping hand. With the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, the Rudd government wants to make changes to the emergency response measures generally agreed to last year. The changes the Rudd government wants to make are as follows: schedule 1 to the bill restricts R-rated material on pay TV to 35 per cent of programming; schedule 2 allows pornographic material to be transported through communities; schedule 3 reintroduces access restrictions to communities by way of permits; and schedule 4 allows certain roadhouses to be deemed as ‘community stores’ and be subject to the same licensing standards as community stores.

Given the serious issue of abuse within communities, as highlighted in the Little children are sacred report, I am staggered that the Rudd government would start with schedule 1, which basically says it is okay to allow up to 35 per cent of programming on pay television to be R rated and beamed into communities that are grappling with addressing child abuse. It also seems crazy that the government would then have schedule 2, which removes the existing restrictions that prohibit the transport of pornographic material across communities. Is this really a priority?

Schedule 3 reintroduces the permit system. Family First was aware that, when the permit system was removed last year, it would be of concern to some Indigenous people. But Family First was of the view that towns should be public areas. Family First believes that permits isolate some Australian communities by saying that only some people can enter. Permits have not protected communities from child abuse, alcohol or drugs. Family First is happy for the Senate to reconsider the permit system but believes it is too early to make any decision to reintroduce permits at this stage. Schedule 4 allows certain roadhouses to be deemed as ‘community stores’. Family First can see merit in this proposal as it will provide more locations where people can get access to the services that are provided through licensed community stores.

Family First believes we should not allow the broadcasting of pornography into communities that are already riddled with cases of child abuse. This fails to properly tackle this terrible problem. We already know that pornography is a real concern for communities. Judy Atkinson, the Head of the College of Indigenous Australian Peoples at Southern Cross University, said that Aboriginal communities are ‘saturated with pornography’. She said she had seen ‘uncles watching hardcore, violent pornographic movies while three- and four-year-olds in nappies played in the dust at their feet’.

Family First remains convinced that permits isolate some Aboriginal communities and simply build barriers between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—barriers that we should all be working towards removing. Family First is not convinced that reintroducing the permit system will protect Indigenous communities from child abuse, alcohol or drugs. Family First cannot support this bill.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 makes amendments that consolidate the legislative framework for the Northern Territory emergency response, which was enacted last year. Notably, it delivers on the government’s election commitment relating to the permit system for major communities in the Northern Territory and extends the pornography measures previously enacted.

In summing up the second reading debate on the bill, I would like to thank all senators for their contribution on this important legislation. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution from the crossbenchers. Senator Siewert raised the important issue of the application of the Racial Discrimination Act. This government is firmly committed to the Racial Discrimination Act and will not make any laws that are inconsistent with the principles of that act. That is why we have carefully crafted this bill to ensure that there are no new provisions which exclude the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act. The independent review board considered the issue of the application of this act in the review of the Northern Territory emergency response measures. The government takes the view that the NTER will not achieve robust, long-term outcomes if measures do not conform with the Racial Discrimination Act. The minister has announced that legislative amendments to bring existing NTER legislation within the scope of the Racial Discrimination Act will be introduced in the spring parliamentary session next year.

Senator Siewert sought assurances from the government about the use of ministerial authorisation to allow classes of persons access to Aboriginal land without a permit. The ministerial authorisation provision was inserted by the previous government and is refined by the bill now before the Senate. The minister intends to use the power to allow journalists access to major communities without a permit to report on events. The Department of Family, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has consulted with the land councils on the wording and the nature of the ministerial authorisation allowing journalists access. These consultations have included the land councils and the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. I can convey to Senator Siewert that the minister has committed to consulting appropriately in the event that future ministerial authorisations are made. These consultations will, of course, include talking to the land councils.

Thank you, also, to Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding for their contributions. I acknowledge the extensive workload that these senators are undertaking on the consideration of critical public policy issues. In response to Senator Xenophon’s request for more time to consider these critical issues, the government agreed to delay the detailed committee stage of the bill so that the senator could fully consider the important legislation we are putting forward. I also want to acknowledge the constructive discussions that have been held with Senator Fielding on the issues raised in this legislation. We now call on Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding to make the right decision based on the practical importance of this legislation for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Before summing up the bill in detail, I would like to specifically address comments from the Liberal opposition about the permit system and the trafficking of alcohol into communities. Media reports that the permit system does not prevent alcohol entering prescribed areas are misconceived. It has been suggested that permits are unnecessary because most alcohol is brought into prescribed areas by Aboriginal people. This shows a misunderstanding of the permit system. Senators opposite may not realise that the permit system can operate to exclude Aboriginal people who are not traditional people from an area in appropriate circumstances.

The Northern Territory Police Association has stated that the permit system does play an important role in policing these communities and keeping out grog and drug runners. The government recognises that permits are only one tool in the fight against grog running. More police are also essential to keep out the alcohol and drug runners. That is why we are putting more police into remote communities to address the rivers of grog described in the Little children are sacred report.

The Liberal opposition has muddied the waters on the important issue of combating substance abuse. The previous government introduced amendments to abolish the requirement for people to seek permits prior to visiting alcohol communities. The current government, however, does not think these amendments contribute to the emergency response. In the view of this government, Indigenous people should, like other Australians, be able to decide who can enter their land. This bill honours our election commitment—let me re-emphasise that: this bill honours our election commitment—to revoke the public access permit changes introduced by the previous government. As part of this measure, the bill will clarify the power of the minister to authorise people to enter Aboriginal land. When the bill is passed, the government will make sure that journalists are able to enter communities for the purposes of reporting on events in those communities. This will be achieved by means of ministerial authorisation.

The permit changes in the bill before the Senate include in the legislation an explicit reference that the minister may not authorise entry to a sacred site under the ministerial authorisation power. This flows from a suggestion made by the Australian Greens during the inquiry into the bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs—a suggestion with which the government has agreed. Similarly, the government has agreed to a request from the Northern Territory government to extend to candidates for local government elections the existing exemption from permit requirements for candidates for federal and Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections.

Last year’s major legislation included prohibitions on the possession, control and supply in prescribed areas of certain pornographic material. To address a further area of concern expressed by Aboriginal people in the Little children are sacred report about R-rated material available through pay television subscription, this bill makes further amendments that are in addition to the provisions enacted by the previous government in 2007. The X- and R-rated pornography bans introduced by the former government remain firmly in place. This bill extends the former government’s measures to pay TV R-rated material. It does not usurp or replace them.

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 are being amended to establish a new class licence condition for subscription television narrowcasting service licences. The new condition will prevent these licensees from providing subscribers in a community declared by the Indigenous affairs minister with access to a subscription television narrowcasting service declared by the communications minister. So that services like the pay TV World Movies channel can continue, services cannot be declared unless they transmit more than 35 per cent of R18+ program hours over a seven-day period.

A community cannot have its access to the television service restricted unless it is in a prescribed area under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007. Also, the restriction will depend on the Indigenous affairs minister being satisfied, following consultation, that the restriction is appropriate. A restriction can be requested by any one person in a community or on behalf of any one person. Community agreement is not required and the minister makes a decision having regard to the wellbeing of women and children. Consistent with the pornography amendments already made to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the new arrangement will include a five-year sunset provision.

The R-rated pay television provisions in this bill now include minor workability improvements recommended by the industry and raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. The provisions, as presented to the Senate, cut red tape by allowing industry to self-declare an R-rated service and improve the record-keeping requirements. The alcohol bans under the emergency response make allowance for alcohol to be transported through a prescribed area to a destination outside the area. For greater consistency with the alcohol bans, this bill will amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to allow prohibited pornographic material to be transported through a prescribed area to a destination outside the prescribed area; thus, industry members conducting their business will be able to transport goods lawfully to areas that are not prescribed. This will mirror the existing alcohol related provisions.

Lastly, the bill will make sure that if a roadhouse effectively takes the place of a community store in a remote area, it can be properly treated as a community store in having to meet the new licensing standards introduced last year. The new community store’s licensing regime is intended to ensure that community stores meet minimum standards and also gives assurance that stores have the capacity to participate in income management. When a community substantially relies on a roadhouse for grocery items and drinks, the roadhouse should be able to be part of the scheme applying to community stores. In other cases, roadhouses will continue not to be regarded as community stores.

As the government has made very clear, we are committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities. The government is keen to work in partnership with Indigenous communities and the Northern Territory government to tackle the problems of child abuse and improve the prospects of Indigenous children and their families. We are also committed to an evidence based policy. We have now had the report from the independent review of the Northern Territory emergency response. The review board found that the emergency response is making some important progress. To name a few important achievements: families in remote communities report feeling safer because of the increased police presence; there is a reduction in alcohol consumption and there are additional night patrols and safe houses; women say that income management means that they can buy essentials for their children such as food and clothes; school nutrition programs are running, and child health check-ups and follow-ups are being conducted.

The existing legislation for the Northern Territory emergency response contains provisions for income management, changes to land and housing arrangements and changes improving law and order and the safety and wellbeing of children and their families. The legislation also contains provisions which deem the measures to be ‘special measures’ and exclude them from the operation of part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Given our commitment to maintaining the overall direction of the emergency response and to focus on effective implementation, the bill contains some amendments to existing measures which continue to be covered by the operation of the racial discrimination provisions in the legislation for the Northern Territory emergency response. Importantly, the bill contains no new provisions which exclude the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act. The new R18+ measures have been designed as special measures and do not have a provision excluding the operation of part II of the Racial Discrimination Act. The government intends, in the spring 2009 sittings of the parliament, to introduce legislation to lift the RDA suspension. I thank senators for their contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.