Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what I regard as an exceptionally important bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. In doing so, can I say we all want action, but we must make sure that we get it right. We must make sure we take the Indigenous community with us, rather than set up at some point in the future yet another confrontation. We have to engage the Indigenous community and finally start to get this right so as to ensure that we make fundamental change where it counts. In that context, this is a controversial bill within Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It is therefore important that we step back and try to work out a negotiated outcome, rather than the government imposing a temporary fix just to get through the forthcoming election.

I say to Minister Brough that people such as Willie Tilmouth in Central Australia know better than him when it comes to local Indigenous issues. They are more concerned with business and commercial development than most people in this House. They have been cutting deals with the private sector for most of their lives to try to do the right thing by their local communities. They are capable of negotiating a settlement that is long lasting. That is what this debate should be about, not a temporary fix for short-term purposes for political reasons.

The bill is an interim measure to establish an Office of the Executive Director of Township Leasing, to hold 99-year leases over townships on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. We should not forget that it is Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and it goes to the question of 99-year leases. How will we actually encourage and attract economic investment which is a secure investment for the private sector in partnership with the Indigenous communities, so that we all benefit from such investments? We believe the intent of the bill is important, but we also think it is about time the Howard government did the hard yards to guarantee that we bring the Indigenous community with us. It is appropriate that some criticism be directed at the Northern Territory Labor government because I think they should be doing a better job of engaging the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory. They have also played race politics from time to time to suit their own political needs, just as the Howard government is doing at this particular time.

Many Indigenous communities are clearly supportive of the 99-year lease concept but they are not prepared to cede control of their land to a bureaucrat from Canberra. They support the principles but, just like anyone else in the commercial world, they want to negotiate with the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments about the nature of the entity in which the leases will be vested. As shadow minister for transport, 99-year leases remind me of a similar concept going to the operation of airports around Australia. The private sector, in taking over responsibility for our airports around Australia on the basis of 99-year leases, expects to be properly consulted and to have the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of those leases. Why is it now suggested by the Howard government that it is different for the Indigenous community but it is all right for the Macquarie Banks of this world and the major superannuation funds to have the right to negotiate issues when it comes to the operation of commercial leases of a 99-year nature on airports? I personally believe this is a reasonable expectation, but unfortunately the Howard government is not patient enough to do the job properly.

Having said that, the Labor Party clearly accepts, as the opposition, that the townships need to be fixed. We have just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the political enfranchisement of Indigenous people. I must say, it is a rather hollow celebration. Even in the last few years, since proper measurement of social and economic indicators commenced for Indigenous Australians, we have gone backwards, not forwards, in too many areas. The Indigenous rate for kidney disease was five times as high as the non-Indigenous rate in 2001, but in 2004-05 it was much worse—10 times as high. Between 2002 and 2006, the imprisonment rate for Indigenous women increased by 34 per cent and the imprisonment rate for Indigenous men increased by over 20 per cent.

Forty years on from the 1967 referendum, the life expectancy of Indigenous people is still around 17 years lower than that for the total Australian population. Death rates in all age groups are higher for Indigenous people than for non-Indigenous people. For those aged between 35 and 54 the death rate is five to six times higher. And the record gets worse. Twenty-one per cent of 15-year-old Indigenous children are not participating in school education compared with five per cent of non-Indigenous children. Indigenous students are half as likely as non-Indigenous students to continue to and complete year 12 or to complete a post secondary qualification of certificate level III or above.

The unemployment rate for Indigenous people is about three times as high as for non-Indigenous people but the Indigenous labour force participation rate is about three-quarters that of non-Indigenous people. Gross weekly household income in Indigenous households is just over half of that for non-Indigenous households. More than half of the Indigenous people received most of their individual income from government pensions and allowances, followed by salaries and wages at 34 per cent and CDEP at 10 per cent.

About a quarter of Indigenous adults live in homes owned by or being purchased by a member of the household compared with three-quarters of non-Indigenous adults. Indigenous children are nearly four times as likely as other children to be the subject of substantiated abuse or neglect. This is an area of shame for all of us, for the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Australia, with the rate of substantiated notifications increasing across the board in the first years of the 21st century.

The Indigenous community might have the vote but what else do they have? Here we are debating about not having proper consultation or negotiation and about us in this elite House in Canberra imposing our will yet again on the Indigenous community. When it comes to Indigenous communities, it is clear from all these indicators that political freedom has not delivered economic social freedom and wellbeing. Without a job, the right to vote is not worth that much. I must say I find myself agreeing with the Prime Minister on one thing when he said:

The human value of having a job, the sense of self-worth and esteem it brings is incalculable.

We are concerned about employment because having a job puts food on the table, it makes homeownership possible, it puts shoes on kids’ feet, it pays for school uniforms and school books and it even opens up the possibility of having a holiday. But having a job is also about a sense of pride in yourself, your family and your local community. It is about building a future for families and local communities. That is why improving access to jobs, training, education and housing is the key to closing the gap between the quality of life of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians once and for all. Yes, it is about economic development, but it is also about making sure the Indigenous communities are involved in the decision making. That goes hand in glove with the decisions of the private sector to engage Indigenous communities in sustainable, long-term economic development.

There can be no progress for Indigenous communities without economic integration and without policy reform. We also contend that township leasing is part of that reform. But to pursue this we have to get it right and take the Indigenous communities with us. It has to be done properly, not by coercion, bullying and threats—as has been claimed by Alice Springs communities. Both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments must put the effort into bringing the communities along with them and recognise that negotiations are a legitimate and necessary part of the process of reform. It is about emancipation and encouraging Indigenous communities to make decisions in their own best interests and in the interests of Australia as a nation.

Part of the 99-year lease negotiations must include proper documentation setting out the rights and obligations of the parties, not just a promise by the minister saying, ‘Trust me, I’m from Canberra.’ The truth is that governments come and go, ministers come and go and secretaries of departments and people in the field, with the best will in the world, come and go. We want to sustain this process and to do so we have to make sure that the Aboriginal communities that are expected to survive as a result of the process are part of the decision making. That means the process will be locked in because they own the outcome of this decision-making process.

I am hopeful that, with patience and a willingness by government to engage, an agreement can be reached for the Tangentyere Council with respect to the Alice Springs townships which desperately need the $60 million on offer from the Commonwealth to improve living standards for their people. That is the desire of Willie Tilmouth and those engaged on behalf of the Tangentyere Council in trying to work out the lease problem. It has to be a two-way street. The minister has his view of life, but life is about compromise. It is no different to industrial relations, commercial negotiations or even sitting down at home with one’s family. You can never have your way all the time. To get a sustainable outcome one has to be prepared to compromise and take people with you. That is the key to long-lasting sustainable development in Indigenous communities in the future, something that we all desire. Without that investment and the creation of jobs we will not be able to overcome the social problems that I have alluded to today. In recent years we have gone backwards on all the available social indicators—be it life expectancy, health, education or employment. The House knows it as well as I do. These are issues that are confronted by people in places such as Alice Springs from morning through to night. Everyone in Alice Springs wants solutions to these problems, not just the Indigenous community.

The memorandum of understanding reached with the Tiwi Island community of Nguiu is a good first step, but more has to be done. The landowners themselves have appropriately made the decision. They are confident that Nguiu will remain a Tiwi town and that the social and economic future of their people will be improved by entering into these new arrangements. They were capable of making these decisions. Traditional owners will retain underlying title to the land under the agreement, which includes the provision of 25 new homes and an additional $1 million in health initiatives. But divisions remain within the Tiwi Island community and every effort must be made to address those in determining the final lease agreement. Let us step back and try and do what is necessary to take the whole Tiwi community with us as one. If we go forward divided in the Tiwi community, at some point in the future a cancer will eat into the agreement and undermine sustainability.

Similarly, the Wadeye community—better known by some as Port Keats—is a community in great need. It is a community with huge social and housing problems. There is high unemployment. At long last there has been better attendance at school, but that raises serious questions as to whether the Commonwealth money allocated to some of the Indigenous community schools is being appropriately accounted for and spent in Indigenous communities. I await the decision of the human rights commission on that matter. It is extremely important to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately on education in Indigenous communities rather than being creamed off for some of the major townships in the Northern Territory where there are fewer Indigenous people engaged in education.

It is now a little over four years since a shared responsibility agreement between the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory and the Thamarrurr Regional Council was signed to trial a new approach to the delivery of services to Indigenous communities based around the principle of mutual obligation. It sounds a little bit like the Labor Party’s concept of mutual responsibility with respect to employment. We are prepared to invest in education and training to get people job ready, but they also have to accept their responsibility to take jobs on offer. It is about making sure that they give something back to the Australian community in return for the investment of taxpayers’ money.

We also have to accept that we need consultation. In a consultant’s evaluation to the Australian government in May last year—three years after the agreement was signed—it was stated:

With regard to housing, the community has seen 4 houses for indigenous occupants built over a period of three years. During that same period some 15 houses were made uninhabitable for periods of up to three months through gang violence and an additional 200 babies were born into the community. In these circumstances, there is little prospect of the chronic overcrowding being reduced in the foreseeable future despite the efforts being made under the COAG trial. Overcrowding is the most frequently identified cause of ill health within Wadeye.

The report went on to say:

The future of housing and other developments at Wadeye will be dependent upon the claims by the traditional owners of the town site, the Kardu Diminin, being recognised and resolved through the granting of appropriate land tenure arrangements ... the traditional owners of the town area have indicated that until their land needs have been appropriately recognised and dealt with, they will not approve any further house blocks or town development at Wadeye.

This is an issue that clearly has to be resolved. It is up to all parties, including the Indigenous community, the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments, the Diminin and the NLC, to sit down and get it fixed once and for all. The community is not opposed to the concept of a 99-year lease and the principles of mutual obligation, but equally they are not prepared to simply hand over control to Canberra.

The Howard government has attached its Indigenous housing program to a condition of ownership being transferred from local communities to state or territory housing authorities, or being made available for purchase by individuals. The objective is to cut out Indigenous run housing corporations, many of which the government believes are corrupt or inefficient. I simply say to the minister that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we are to empower Indigenous people with control of their own future we cannot leave them without ownership structures. There must continue to be a role for them in the lease entity.

This year will see a record $3.5 billion in spending on Indigenous specific programs. Let us make sure it is money well spent. It must not be squandered, but the fact is that it will be if we cannot get the support of Indigenous communities through their own involvement in these programs. Housing is obviously one of the most important priorities but so is the creation of real jobs and real enterprises, like the Tiwi Islands forestry venture. That takes me to the issue of Great Southern Plantations, which is delivering real jobs and real income for the Tiwi community. On the latest figures I have, out of a full-time workforce of 58, 29 Tiwis work for Great Southern Plantations already, which I think is a tremendous achievement and somewhat akin to the achievement of Rio Tinto at Argyle in the diamond industry—real jobs for competitive wages and not CDEP or dole pittances. These people are now emerging as the leaders of these communities because of their employment status. This is where we have to go: a partnership between the private sector, all tiers of government and the Indigenous community.

I raise the issue of forestry in the climate change debate because I think that is potentially an area of real progress in Northern Australia. The area of Port Keats and Wadeye has been identified for potential plantation development. Building on the success of Tiwi, we should be pursuing further plantation developments in Northern Australia. The Indigenous communities want it. They understand the issue of climate change and the potential benefits from the greenhouse debate—carbon sinks and the creation of sustainable jobs for the Indigenous community in tending to those forests. I urge the government to encourage this type of investment side by side with education and training. That will do something about overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, creating jobs and real wealth for future Indigenous communities. I know that is the desire of the Indigenous communities; I have spoken to them firsthand about that in recent times. It is also the desire of the forestry division of the CFMEU, led by Michael O’Connor, and of many business houses in their desire to be seen to do something on climate change and to do something firsthand with Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory on this front. It is about economic and social empowerment, and it is about ending welfare dependency.

The opposition opposes this bill and calls on the government to develop an appropriate structure for the entity holding 99-year township leases—one that includes representation of traditional owners. It is not a big ask. Let us take the Indigenous community with us. This bill goes too far in taking away their rights and weakening the empowerment that comes with them. Only then will we get sustainable economic development in the Northern Territory and in other Indigenous communities, because the Indigenous communities, through their involvement, will feel ownership and a commitment to the final outcomes. Canberra imposing its will represents a further potential disaster in the future. Step back, pursue negotiations and get the right outcome—a potential long-lasting, sustainable outcome which improves the social indicators. (Time expired)

See this speech in context