Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

After listening to some of the contributions during this debate, I think it is helpful to return to the facts about what this bill represents. I do not think it would hurt to even look at some of the background, because certainly the positions being put forward from the opposition fail to acknowledge the process that we went through in coming to this position. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 will reinstate the permit system in all Northern Territory communities in line with the government’s election commitment. This was a government election commitment, it was obviously supported by the community in the election, we are now in government, and we are honouring that commitment.

The bill repeals most of the permit system amendments which came into force on 17 February 2008. The argument that we should allow those amendments further time to come into force are simply not sustained, and they are not sustained because there was no case for them in the first instance. But I will come to that point. The exceptions to this repeal are those provisions dealing with access for government workers, which will remain. We acknowledge that that is one important area that needs to be dealt with. Again, from listening to some of the contributions from the other side, you would think that that accommodation had not been met.

There is strong sense in local Aboriginal communities’ opposition to the removal of the permit system, which occurred under the previous government. The ability to determine who can enter your land is an important element of land rights for Aboriginal people. Reinstating the permit system will make it harder for drugs, alcohol and people with criminal intent to enter local Aboriginal communities. The government does not believe that such provisions contribute to the broader emergency response.

Let’s look at some of the benefits of returning to the previous arrangements. It ensures that normal interactions of local communities can exist without interference. It protects the privacy of locals. It respects Aboriginal culture on traditional lands and allows for effective land management by Aboriginal groups. It provides a level of control to enable communities to exclude undesirable people from entering their community and it is compliant with Australia’s human rights obligations.

Let’s look at some of the background to this matter. Previously the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory Act) 1976 provided for a permit system on Indigenous land. It was an offence for a person to enter or remain on Indigenous land except in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act or with the law of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly had power to make laws regulating or authorising entry onto Aboriginal land, but any such laws provided for the right of Aboriginals to enter such land in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. On the recommendation of a land council, the Administrator of the Northern Territory was able to declare an area of Aboriginal land or a road to be an open area or an open road which could be entered without a permit.

Reform of the permit system was first recommended in Building on land rights for the next generation. Report of the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in August 1998, known as the Reeves report. In 2006 the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, referred the permit system to a review conducted by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and a discussion paper was issued. In 2007 the former government had sought to establish a link between the permit system and child abuse in Aboriginal communities, but it failed to provide any evidence to suggest that such a link existed.

When I looked back at this and thought in political terms of the time frame that we were dealing with here, I had renewed visions of the ‘children overboard’ affair. But on this occasion the tool for the government’s agenda was not people seeking refuge in Australia; it was the Indigenous population. I looked closely at what case, if any, had been made about the value of removing the permit system and, unsurprisingly, there was no case established. There was no argument as to how the permit system might increase child abuse. The review was used by the minister as justification for the need to change the permit system, but the minister refused to release the report and did not substantiate his reasons for removing the permit system at all. There was no evidential basis to support the abolition of the permit system. The rationale for the abolition of the permit system is at odds with the evidence provided by FaCSIA. This process was a continuation of the previous government’s attack on Indigenous land rights and a continuation of the Howard government’s attack on any marginalised group you could imagine that would heed their political advantage.

I would like to address some of the issues raised in the Senate inquiry in relation to this bill. The submissions to the inquiry argued that no case had been substantiated that provided any correlation or relationship linking the permit system to child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. I would encourage some of the opposition senators to actually read the report. It was also noted by the inquiry that significant child abuse had been reported outside the Northern Territory, including in areas of Queensland and Western Australia, where no permit system existed or could be relied upon by the former government in their arguments.

Some submissions argued that the permit system was not a major contributor to community underdevelopment and social dysfunction. Further, the removal of the permit system was not one of the recommendations of the Wild-Andersen report and its removal would make the control of alcohol, drugs and outside predators even more problematic. So not only was this issue not part of an appropriate emergency response but, if anything, it was more likely to compound the problems. The Central Land Council, highlighting the positives of the permit system, said:

... our overall view is that the permit system is an effective and appropriate tool under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (Land Rights Act) for negotiating third party access to Aboriginal land for miners, pastoralists, developers and visitors.

The Law Council of Australia argued:

There is no evidence presented in the discussion paper that the permit system unnecessarily impedes media access to Aboriginal land, or has contributed to the economic and social isolation of Aboriginal communities. The prevailing view amongst experts in this area is that the poor economic and social outcomes for Indigenous Australians remain tied to poor service delivery, lack of housing, lack of employment opportunities, lack of education and training, poor health and life expectancy and serious drug and alcohol problems affecting Indigenous populations in both metropolitan and regional areas.

The Police Federation of Australia goes further in support of the current system, stating:

Operational police on the ground in the Northern Territory believe that the permit system is a useful tool in policing the communities, particularly in policing alcohol and drug-related crime. It would be most unfortunate if by opening up the permit system in the larger public townships and the connecting road corridors as the—

former—

Government intends, law enforcement efforts to address the ‘rivers of grog’, the distribution of pornography, and the drug running and petrol sniffing were made more difficult.

This was from the Police Federation of Australia, and I cannot understand why the now opposition and the former government did not listen to evidence of this nature.

Further, a report on the permit system prepared by Professor John Altman found that there was no evidence that the partial abolition of the permit system would reduce child sex abuse and that the arrangements which were to be enacted by the package may be unworkable in practice. So, in response to opposition senators’ comments so far, why on earth, on the evidence, would we allow more time for this strategy to continue? We knew from the outset it was poor, we knew from the outset it was wrong. There is no evidence to sustain the case and, even now, we know it is not working. Why would we not concentrate on what we know will have a greater chance of success for Indigenous Australians?

This brings me to the overall Northern Territory emergency response. The government has announced an independent review to assess the overall progress of the emergency response and to consider what is and what is not working. We know these elements are not working but we will be looking very closely at determining what is and what is not working with respect to the broader Northern Territory emergency response. The review is expected to report by 30 September 2008. This government has continued funding the emergency response in the 2008-09 budget. In total, over $600 million has been committed to the Northern Territory emergency response since the change of government in November 2007. We have not stopped responding; we have removed elements of the plan that will not work, elements we know we have a mandate for from the last federal election.

The $600 million that we have committed since the change of government represents a major commitment of government resources and an on-the-ground effort to address the chronic problems that have led to poor outcomes for the people living in communities and town camps of the Northern Territory. It is the government’s strong intention that Indigenous people be engaged more effectively than has occurred in recent years. This government has already made a departure from the previous government’s approach to the issue. This bill fine tunes a number of measures under the Northern Territory emergency response. Significantly, the measures contained in this bill are designed to operate consistently with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This bill contains no new provisions which exclude the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and has been welcomed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.

The government is committed to work in partnership with Indigenous communities to tackle the problems of child abuse and neglect and to meet our commitments in respect to closing the gap. We are committed to work with Indigenous communities. We do not see the need to take away their autonomy in ways we already know will not work, ways that the former government used for its own political purposes rather than to try to close the gap.

In conclusion, upon the passage of this legislation, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will make a determination to allow access to major communities for journalists and government contractors such as health workers to give full effect to the government’s election commitment. Indigenous communities voted in favour of this government at the last election, and we will deliver on our promise of reinstating the permit system. Most importantly, reinstating the permit system will restore Aboriginal control and autonomy over who enters their local communities. Tackling Indigenous disadvantage is a priority for this government and we have set ambitious targets in health, education and employment outcomes and will take an evidence based and consultative approach in working to achieve our outcomes.

Let me stress this point as a very final conclusion: an evidence based approach is what we will use. We will not use marginalised and disadvantaged communities for our political advantage. An evidence based approach on what will work is our focus and will be our focus. I was astounded when I looked at this matter because I had not been following it in detail in recent years. Mr Brough managed to succeed in providing no evidential basis at all for his measures, none at all to sustain his approach to the permit system. When asked to produce the report, it simply never came.

Perhaps that is reflective of how the Senate was operating over that period of time and, thankfully, there is a role for a good and strong opposition. But to meet that role, the opposition is going to need to do significantly better than the contributions that were made here today. Starting with being factual would be helpful, as would dealing with the facts, dealing with an evidence based approach and not demonising our marginalised communities. Working with the Indigenous community, supporting and reinforcing their autonomy and reflecting on an evidence based approach to make real and genuine progress here is what needs to occur.

I have not looked at the indicators closely in this area in recent years. I have an anecdotal feel that this is another one of those areas where Australia’s progress in social policy has gone backwards. Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin might be able to reinforce this point at some stage, but I have a sense that if we look at the health and wellbeing indicators we will find that this area is another where Australia’s performance in recent years has gone backwards. Yesterday, we had the education debate. Again, this opposition had the gall to suggest that our plans in education were failing even at this early stage and yet, when you look at what happened under the Howard government, it is just so clear that in straightforward indicators such as capacity to retain our children in school, which is critical for the future and to the nation’s future, we had gone backwards. Every other OECD nation had gone forward. So what I would like to see, as we move forward in this debate, is a focus on an evidence based approach. We look at the evidence of what is working.

Senator Bernardi shakes his head when I talk about an evidence based approach. I am not talking about evidence that there is a problem. I think we can all agree with the evidence that there is a problem. The evidence we need is evidence about what will help solve the problem. Instituting measures for which there is no evidential base, no support at all, is not going to solve the problem.

In response to opposition senators who suggest that more time is needed for this measure, I ask this very simple question: where is the evidence that these measures were going to assist? Minister Brough provided none of that evidence. In fact, he did worse: he misled us by suggesting that there was evidence. When the Senate committee inquiry looked into the matter and spoke to FaCSIA in a new environment, alas, we discovered no such evidence existed. So once again, as with the children overboard affair, the Howard government took us on a merry dance—to the detriment of the Indigenous community—instead of taking a sensible and evidence based approach to achieving advances in our social policy and dealing with marginalised groups and communities. That is what happened and I am astounded, given the mandate that exists for these measures, that the opposition is taking the approach that it is. There is now a very clear mandate and no case was made by the former minister to justify these measures. I commend the bill to the Senate.