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

I rise to continue my contribution in this debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008. Having spoken for only a short time previously, and a number of weeks ago, I wonder if I could query the time allocated. I thought that I had spoken for five minutes and that I had 15 minutes left. Is that the case?

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will double-check your time allocation. When we have done that we will reset the clock if necessary. Otherwise you have four minutes at this stage.

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

I may well be seeking leave to incorporate the rest of my speech if that is the case. The passage of this bill is now required more urgently to restore the permit system in the Northern Territory as soon as possible. This is, for most Indigenous communities in the Territory, an essential piece of legislation. At present, the public can access communities by air or sea without a permit. Aboriginal people have made it clear that restoration of the permit system is a major priority. On passage of this bill, the permit system will be restored with a few minor changes. For example, the minister will make the necessary determination to allow access to communities for journalists and government contractors acting in their professional capacity.

The removal of the permit system was overwhelmingly opposed by Indigenous people and the land councils in the Northern Territory. I outlined that in my previous contribution to this debate. Of course, this was totally ignored by the previous government in their arrogant approach to most matters by that stage. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs received a submission to the inquiry on this legislation from the Law Council of Australia, which related information that they had been able to obtain only under freedom of information regarding the previous Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and responses to his discussion paper about the permit system. The previous minister produced a totally irrelevant and simplistic so-called discussion paper with a range of absolutely spurious reasons for needing to remove the permit system. As pointed out by the Law Council of Australia in their submission:

… no correlation or relationship had been established by the former Government or its agencies linking the permit system to child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities.

Paedophiles had not been protected by the permit system. Journalists with a sound reputation were not denied access to communities. Business was not deterred; in fact, far from it—businesses abound on Aboriginal land. Businesses range from small art centres, to which buyers freely come; tourist ventures; and many large mining operations, bringing in huge revenue. So the permit system, as it was, put up few barriers to access, but enabled, for example, police at Maningrida to stop vehicles and, if they had no permit, to search them. In several cases, they actually prevented grog and drug runners from harming the community.

It is not in the least clear how the previous government seriously believed that removal of the permit system would do anything to protect the children. One can only suspect that it was ideologically driven, especially considering that not one single response to the discussion paper produced by the former government said to remove it. A few recommended some amendments but, despite this, the Howard government abolished the permit system. Obviously it was an ideological move, not one based on evidence. The Law Council of Australia also stated in their submission that, of the 80 responses to the discussion paper and community consultations, all of them revealed unanimous support for no change to the permit system. Even two mining companies that were consulted did not want the permit system abolished, but one wanted some amendments.

In his second reading speech to the original bill in 2007, the former minister for Indigenous affairs claimed that it was disturbing to find that people had approached department officials after community consultations to say they supported the removal of the permit system but had been too scared to say it in public. Never once did that minister reveal the true findings of these permit consultations, which were provided to him well before this speech. Not surprisingly, he hid them well. Furthermore, the Law Council stated in their submission that they found no record in any of the documents provided by FaCSIA to support the previous minister’s claim that community members had made any unofficial or private submissions outside of the public consultations.

The power to determine who may and may not enter their land is viewed by Aboriginal people as an important part of their land rights, but never, in my experience, has that right been abused. Let me give a bit of a history of the permit system under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The permit system has operated in relation to Aboriginal land under the Aboriginal Land Act since 1978, and it has legal and policy purposes. Legally, the scheduling of Aboriginal reserves, which were crown land, as freehold under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 bestowed a right on the owner—for example, a land trust—to exclude any person for any reason, other than Aboriginal people with traditional rights of access. This right was recognised by Justice Woodward in his 1974 report as being integral to the concept of Aboriginal ownership of land. Justice Woodward recorded that it was strongly supported at the time by both the Northern and Central land councils on behalf of their Aboriginal constituents, and the right as regulated by the permit system continues to be strongly supported by them. Justice Woodward recognised that, in contrast to ordinary grants of freehold, a regulatory scheme was required because it was necessary for persons with a legitimate or justifiable purpose to be able to access Aboriginal land—especially communities but also for road maintenance, public works, mining and other developments—and that such persons should not be subject to arbitrary or capricious exclusion.

The statutory scheme in the Aboriginal Land Act of the Northern Territory thus regulates the right to exclude, ordinarily encompassed by an estate in freehold, by ensuring that certain persons have a right of access—for example, members of parliament—and other persons have a right to apply for access and have it properly considered by the minister or the land council in accordance with law. To ensure flexibility, traditional Aboriginal owners may also grant a permit regarding their country—section 5(2)—and the land councils may delegate their power under section 5(4). In practice, although they have no statutory role, Aboriginal communities or community councils facilitate permits in conjunction with traditional owners.

From a policy perspective, the scheme is intended to ensure that Aboriginal communities and people are not subject to breaches of privacy or inappropriate or culturally insensitive actions by unauthorised persons on Aboriginal land. It is also intended to ensure that persons with a legitimate or justifiable interest may enter Aboriginal land. Such inappropriate actions are not uncommon and, in a non-court context, have included inappropriate presence or reporting regarding culturally sensitive matters such as funerals or ceremonies, unauthorised photography, and indefensible misrepresentation regarding important issues. Professor Jon Altman, from the ANU, in his statement to the Senate committee made this point:

I have not seen evidence that journalists have been excluded. I have seen one very well publicised case where a journalist was prosecuted for being at an Aboriginal community without a permit.

And he went on to suggest that any landowner would be upset if journalists had free access to their land. And it should not be a surprise that the one journalist mentioned by Professor Altman was one of the only people to speak against reintroducing the permit system. Other than that, there has been support from a wide range of journalists for the introduction of this permit system.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs heard from Mr William Tilmouth, the CEO of Tangentyere Council. At the hearings in Alice Springs, Mr Tilmouth said:

… there is no evidence that the permit system has resulted in harm to children. On the contrary, it appears to have assisted police in controlling undesirable people entering communities—

That statement was later supported by the Northern Territory Police Federation in the hearings in Darwin. In summary, Mr Tilmouth said that the permit system gives a community the ability to weed out undesirables and move them on, whether Indigenous or non Indigenous—for example, where there was too much alcohol involved or where there were family disputes.

Mr Ron Levy, representing the Northern Land Council, as a witness to the Senate committee in Darwin, said that there were reasons other than permits that meant journalists did not go to court cases in Aboriginal communities, including the fact that the important cases ended up in Darwin or Alice Springs anyway and it usually cost a lot to travel to communities. He stated that, of 50 applications from journalists, he is aware of only two having been refused by the NLC. He cited the example of the NLC Chairman being at an event at Yirrkala on the day of the hearings—a community with open access—but very few journalists were interested in going to the event, as it would take up the whole day with travel and cost a lot, all for one news item. So, as the NLC has pointed out, it is very rare that we see journalists seeking to go into these communities, as cost alone prohibits them. Mr Levy provided some figures which showed that about 30,000 people live on Indigenous communities in the Territory and the NLC alone issues about 22,000 permits a year. So permits are hardly very restrictive. The CLC and other land councils gave evidence that they in fact have issued many more than that.

It is quite hard for non-Indigenous people to fully comprehend what their land means to Indigenous people, who have a totally different viewpoint and different values about land. We tend to value land primarily for its economic value or worth. We buy our block of land, which is then part of our ‘wealth’, and we rate that worth in dollar terms. For Indigenous people, their land is not valued in dollar terms, but rather as cultural and spiritual assets to be guarded and looked after for future generations. They believe they came from the land and they will return there. They have an intimate knowledge of their land. The rivers, the creeks, the valleys and the features of the landscape all have a part in their history and their legends. All major features are associated with some part of their history, ancestry, beliefs and culture. This may be a beach where special ancestors came ashore or a valley created by the Rainbow Serpent. Whatever it is, it has a special meaning for Indigenous people. One has only to visit communities such as Ngukurr, Groote Island, the Dhimurru land management group in Nhulunbuy or the people in Maningrida and their land management groups to see the pride they have in managing their land. They see the importance the rest of the community attach to this work.

So the land is of absolute, paramount importance to Indigenous people, and an element of control over who can enter and for what reasons is equally important—and this should be understood by all fair-minded Australians. The request to reinstate the permit system should be supported by this federal parliament. This part of the bill is very strongly supported by Indigenous people and organisations—and, as I said, this aspect of the bill should be supported and passed.

In finishing, I want to remind the Senate that this bill also contains measures to prohibit the broadcasting of certain R18+ pay TV channels in the prescribed areas under the intervention, but only if the community so requests. Finally, some further minor sections amend omissions from the initial bills—in particular, with respect to licensing some road houses as stores and allowing for the transport of some prohibited items through the prescribed areas.

If we truly want to ensure that we develop a new relationship with Indigenous people in this country, we need to listen to what they are saying—and I direct my comments specifically to Senators Xenophon and Fielding. The reinstatement of the permit system is something that Indigenous people in the Northern Territory want, and they have strongly made representations to this Senate, to those senators and to me to ensure that this is what is granted through the passage of this bill.

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

I rise, I suspect at this point very briefly, to address the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008, and if, as I assume, we are to move to non-controversial bills at 12.45 pm, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 12.45 pm, the debate is interrupted and we move to non-controversial legislation.