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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to take note of document 8 on the Red, which is the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's 'Review of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012)', the review by KPMG. For people who for some reason may be unaware, the Stronger Futures legislation is the legislation that replaced the Northern Territory intervention—the legislation that the Labor government brought in, continuing the top-down punitive approach of the Northern Territory intervention. For some reason, it does not include a review of the income management measures.

The context of the review is that it is primarily 'a desktop analysis of existing data and reports, complemented by selected consultations with Australian and NT government officials'. The review takes place in three phases: reading of the legislation; literature review, consultation and data collection; and report and finalisation. The review notes—and this is particularly important—there being 'a lack of data'. They then say: 'Assessed against the overarching objective of the act, which is to support Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to lead long, strong independent lives where communities, families and children are safe and happy, this review finds overall that the first three years of the operation of the act have been largely effective.' I fail to see, through this review, how they could say that when there is no evidence to back up that statement and they themselves comment that there is a lack of data.

A whole 11 stakeholders were consulted, seven of which are government agencies—either NT government departments or the Commonwealth! To Commonwealth agencies: 'Do you think your operation under the Stronger Futures Act has been effective?' 'Yes, I do!' Of course they are going to say that! And who else was consulted? Outback Stores. Is that the same Outback Stores who have been pinged a couple of times very recently for supplying cheap sugary drinks, when their own protocols outline that they should not be putting cheap sugary drinks on sale and they are trying to promote healthy foods? In fact, that is why under the Northern Territory intervention the government said they were putting in place Outback Stores—so they could sell healthy food. If you are consulting government agencies, of course they are going to say they are doing a good job.

I am not surprised that they talk about a lack of data because it is quite obvious that there was not a proper evaluation of these measures under this review. Under 'Tackling alcohol' they say: overall, there is insignificant data available to the reviewers that would evidence comprehensive and robust links between the act and changes in key indicators of alcohol related harm over the period 2012 to 2015.' That is hardly being 'largely effective'. Under 'Land reform' they say: 'There is evidence to suggest that there has been some increase in take-up and investments made in communities by the government that would not otherwise have occurred.' Take-up by the government? You did not need this act to do that. Under 'Food security' it says: 'While it is not possible for this review to quantify the extent of the contribution made by recent store licensing measures to health and wellbeing outcomes in communities, the review finds that the response of stakeholders to the reforms was broadly positive.' Oh, that would be the seven government agencies that they have talked to and Outback Stores!

This is a fraud of a review. When you look at the very comprehensive review of the Northern Territory evaluation, it shows that the Northern Territory evaluation did not meet any of its objectives. Now we have this 'desktop review'—and I will be exploring in estimates how much it cost to get KPMG to carry out a desktop review. By doing a desktop review, they were obviously limited in the scope of what they could do. When is this government going to take seriously what it is doing in Aboriginal communities, and address Aboriginal disadvantage seriously, when it can't even be bothered funding a proper review of Stronger Futures and the measures they helped put in place? It is time to abandon that approach. It is time to abandon the top-down, income management, punitive, paternalistic process. It has been almost 10 years. It has failed. Admit it and do something better.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert is quite critical about this report, but I have to say to the chamber and to anyone listening that it is a question of who you would believe on assessing these issues: either KPMG, an organisation with a wide and high reputation for accuracy and common sense, or the Greens political party. I would suggest that most Australians would go to KPMG. I thought Senator Siewert's quite unfortunate criticism of the report emphasises the shallowness of the Greens' approach to most of these issues.

I did not want to refer to the whole of this particular document but to the part of the document relating to land reform. I have said a number of times that, for Indigenous people to reach their potential, they really need to have some form of land titles system which actually benefits them. I appreciate the Northern Territory is slightly different, but we have had native title legislation for 20 years and I cannot really see where it has benefited anyone—most importantly, Indigenous people. What the government should be really looking at is how Indigenous people can be given the opportunity, which every other Australian has, of using their land for their benefit and to improve their lives. To me, for all of the debate that has gone on over many years—mainly, I might say, by people living in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Perth who, with respect to them, I think never really understand these situations—we really need to get some sort of system in relation to land titles that actually brings benefits and a better lifestyle to Indigenous people.

Regarding the Northern Australia white paper, which is now a year old, about which the minister delivered the first annual report just yesterday, there was a lot in that document which attempted to address the issue of land titles generally, but importantly in relation to Indigenous people and land in the Northern Territory. This report, of course, refers to the reforms under the Stronger Futures program in the Northern Territory specifically. Under the act, the Australian government enacted a package of land reform measures which were intended to extend opportunities for voluntary long-term leasing, particularly in relation to community living areas and town camps. Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Regulation 2013 amends the Northern Territory legislation to allow the community living areas landowners to grant leases and licences for a broader range of purposes and to increase the threshold requirements for ministerial consent from 12 months to 10 years. By easing leasing restrictions and broadening the categories of habitable land use to enable economic participation, the Stronger Futures act measures are regarded to be compatible with human rights and the rights of Indigenous people to self-determination.

The report goes on and it is worth reading. It is taking steps towards what the government believes, and I believe, is a better arrangement for Indigenous people and the land that is theirs. It enables them to treat a parcel of land as theirs that they can build upon, be proud of, improve and, perhaps in cases, even make profits out of. That is where I think, in the interests of our First Australians, we have to look at it and try to advance that so that land ownership means something in a tangible form to Indigenous people and leads to a better lifestyle, more independence and greater pride for these Australians. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.