Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

That has been countered by others—it is true—who speak in the debate, and I am reminded of a paper by Warin and Hughes of last year which saw fit to compare the work that was done in Aboriginal communities with that done in communist China. That is probably why we heard the minister’s comments in the House today. But that paper was singularly ill informed and did not understand that in fact there were a number of healthy, vibrant and economically active Aboriginal communities, including communities existing as out-stations throughout Arnhem Land and in other parts.

There are a number of other issues that are problematic and have been referred to by the member for Lingiari. These include the proposal to cap rental payments on land leased to a Northern Territory government entity at five per cent of the improved capital value of the land as well as making payments out of the Aboriginal benefits account, with that account being made available for rental payments. I just make the simple point that to cap a rental payment at five per cent, even of improved value, in an act of parliament like this I think is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in a commercial sense to Indigenous people and it is unacceptable given the terms of these leases and the periods of time for which they run. It is extraordinary to me that a figure of this kind should be included in a bill of this nature. I would certainly ask the minister to readdress that particular issue.

Again, the additional proposals that deal with creating new land councils are also of concern, not having been subject to sufficient negotiations or consultation. It seems that the government has taken those aspects of the Reeves report it agreed to and dispensed with the House of Representatives recommendations that it did not agree to. More importantly, though, is the question about housing itself and the arguments advanced by government members that this bill will be a magic bullet to the extent that it will automatically provide for people to have home ownership and that their social conditions will improve as a matter of course. It is true that, in some communities and some instances, home ownership, which we support, would have that effect, but it would be by no means the rule. For those people living in the Northern Territory in remote communities where their average income is around $13,500, it is hard to see how home ownership in and of itself is even reachable or accessible. The amount that has been identified as necessary for investment in housing in the Northern Territory alone—and that is maintenance and construction—runs to the billions. If the government were truly serious about home ownership or the provision of housing for Aboriginal people—Indigenous people who particularly face extremely challenging social situations on account of the fact that there is a perilous shortage of housing—that is what we should be hearing from the government.

I draw the House’s attention to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute paper, Indigenous housing: assessing the long term costs and the optimal balance between recurrent and capital expenditure, released earlier this year. It considered this issue in detail. Its recommendations, most of which go to the best way governments can properly provide for housing, were simple. Governments must provide a financially viable and stable Indigenous community housing sector by ensuring concurrent support for recurrent maintenance and housing management and funding models. The research institute identifies, amongst other things, the lack of data and good information that governments have about what actually happens in Aboriginal communities where housing is in crisis and about the shortage that is there. The challenges faced by Indigenous community housing organisations, both in obtaining housing grants and in ensuring that housing is well maintained into the longer term, are profound.

The institute suggests that, amongst other things, the Australian government could request Indigenous community housing organisations to agree to assist in providing responses to relevant surveys of the housing management and stock condition and, upon receipt of these agreements, a suitably revised version of the questionnaire could be pursued. There could be a quantity surveyor driven analysis of the condition of the housing stock of ICHOs throughout Australia with priority focused on those organisations not receiving grants and the government could establish and fund a national Indigenous housing, training and development centre. This centre, drawing on and developing relevant existing courses, could be attached to an appropriate university and its courses could have tertiary diploma status. Finally, the centre could focus on delivering both longer and shorter courses in Indigenous housing management, drawing heavily on existing Indigenous housing managers. It seems to me that the government should consider—and, I hope, respond positively to—the policy recommendations identified in the work that the institute has done. There is a lot more to housing than coming into the House and supporting legislation of this kind without considering the issues in their wider context.

There are additionally some other aspects of this bill which we find have merit. I refer particularly to those provisions of the bill that refer to royalty associations. Those reforms contemplated are in sync with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on ATSIA proposals. There is absolutely no doubt that, in some instances, there is a need for a form of that kind with royalty associations, particularly to give confidence to both those who are receiving the royalties and those who are distributing them that it is done in a prudential and an acceptable fashion. We accept the need for reform, but this bill is flawed. We need to have good law which delivers good results—law which understands the history both of dispossession and acquisition of rights by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and which understands fundamentally the necessity for proper consultation and identification of any or all of those obstacles that may stand in the way of these people being able to deal with their housing problems in a constructive and real manner. This is something the bill does not do.

See this speech in context