Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Look through the eyes of an Aboriginal child of the Northern Territory and, for many, all you will see is violence, lawlessness, poverty and despair, because looking through the eyes of an Aboriginal child frames a bleak and depressing picture in many circumstances. Most recently, this picture was animated by the Little children are sacred report. This report follows more than a dozen or so reports over the last 30 years which have illuminated the often appalling conditions in which the First Australians live, and the toll that that takes on their health, their wellbeing and, often, their ability to survive. The bulk of these reports have been delivered over the last decade or so. Not much has been done on the basis of these reports. In turn, a number of these reports have dealt explicitly with the abuse of children. Not much has been done about them either. It is worth recalling the remarks of our former parliamentary colleague Fred Chaney, who wrote tellingly last year:

Governments will come and go, shocked ministers will come and go. What needs to change is how Australia moves beyond serial crisis intervention to take the systemic, long-term action consistently called for by fellow Australians living the horror. Consistent application by all parties, including governments, is the test of their sincerity.

That was Fred Chaney, a former Liberal minister. This report, Little children are sacred, demands a response. It demands a systemic response and a continuing response, not an episodic response. The measures we are discussing today will not be universally welcomed; nor are they seen as remedies for every problem encountered by Aboriginal communities across Australia; nor are they seen as a panacea for the state of misery which often prevails in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. But I believe the report that I referred to before presents us all with a duty and a responsibility to act, and to do so without delay.

Neither side of politics has a track record worth trumpeting when it comes to Indigenous Australia. Could the Northern Territory government have done more to protect Indigenous children? Almost certainly, as Pat Anderson’s and Rex Wild’s report shows. The same could be said of most state and territory governments—be they Labor or Liberal—over recent times. Moreover, both sides of this House are not absolved of past failures. But today is not the day for blame and shame—it is a time for action. That is why, in a spirit of bipartisanship in tackling child abuse and giving these kids a chance, we will support the passage of this legislation. We hope it will assist in reducing the incidence of child abuse in these communities.

From the outset I offered to work with the government to construct a bipartisan way forward, and I reaffirm that commitment today. Our concern from the outset has been the protection of Indigenous children. In the five years to 2006 notifications of abuse and neglect of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory grew at more than three times the rate of that for non-Indigenous children. Between 2005 and 2006 Indigenous children in the Northern Territory were five times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be the victims of child abuse on the basis of substantiated reports of that abuse. Furthermore, of all sexually transmitted infections diagnosed in Aboriginal people in the Territory, eight per cent occurred in children under the age of 16. That is nearly three times the infection rate for non-Aboriginal children. These statistics, grim as they are, require us all to act and to act in a new way. Accordingly, our overriding concern with these bills is that any action arising from them must establish a clear nexus between the proposed course of action on the one hand and the protection of Aboriginal children on the other.

We also recognise that these bills can be improved. In a continuing spirit of bipartisanship, Labor has proposed three areas for the government to consider: (1) the proposed operation of the permit system, (2) the application of special measures under the Racial Discrimination Act and (3) the need for a review of the effectiveness of the housing and welfare provisions of the legislation after a 12-month period of their implementation.

To our enduring shame and disappointment as a nation too many children in Australia today are subjected to abuse or neglect. How we care for our children is one of the tests of our society. Our failure to provide safety, security and dignity for all of our children diminishes our claim to be a civilised, humane and prosperous nation. The reality is that today the scourge of child abuse, including that in Indigenous communities, represents a great hole in the heart of our nation. As I said, these are failures that belong not to one political party or to one individual or to one generation. But from these failures we have all come to this place now to act. Between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 the number of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect nationally almost doubled from 24,732 to 46,154. These are terrible figures that require action for the nation. In most states the rates of Indigenous children who are the subject of child protection substantiation are above 20 per thousand, whereas for non-Indigenous children the rates are below 10 per thousand. Again, this requires action.

It is for these reasons that we have announced that we will work with the states and the territories to develop a national child protection framework. It is also why we continue to offer our bipartisan support for this legislation. The bills before us today represent a difficult challenge for many Indigenous Territorians. All Australians, and particularly Indigenous Australians, have a deep emotional attachment to their land. If we can work together in a cooperative, consultative and respectful manner, I believe that we can achieve real improvements in housing and other infrastructure in towns and in town camp land. We have argued that the proposals contained in the legislation must make plain the link between their elements and the protection of children.

If you study the Little children are sacred report, it is clear that housing and infrastructure have a direct bearing on the safety of children. In some communities overcrowded housing puts children in close proximity to alcohol, violence and pornography. The report by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson recognises the risk this places on children. It notes children’s exposure to pornographic material—in particular videos and DVDs—and argues that this occurs as a result of poor supervision, overcrowding in houses and acceptance of normalisation of this type of material. If temporary leases are backed by a commitment from the government to housing and infrastructure improvements that provide some measure of security for children, they are worth supporting. On the subject of permits, it is vital that those who are playing a part in the emergency intervention, as it affects children, are not impeded from gaining access to communities. We also must be careful about those who are coming and going.

Vince Kelly from the Northern Territory Police Association argues that the government has failed to make a case about the connection between sexual assault in Indigenous communities and the permit system. On ABC radio last month, Mr Kelly said the following about the permit system:

It does give both the police and local communities the ability to exclude certain people from the community, people who are possibly offenders in relation to sexual abuse, and physical abuse of Aboriginal women and children, but more importantly offenders in terms of running grog and running drugs into these communities.

I believe we should extend the class of people who can access communities under the existing permit system by all means, but we should retain those elements that prevent those who are a potential threat to children.

I will also suggest another protection—that is, to require people coming into communities to have a Working with Children check. I understand that the Territory government is about to implement a strengthened regime. I believe it should be used as an added means of protecting Indigenous children from abuse. I urge the government to think about this approach in improving the overall protection regime for children.

We will also support the government’s proposals in relation to the quarantining of welfare payments. We recently committed to work with the states and territories to develop a national child protection framework underpinned by an ability to quarantine payments for the benefit of a child in cases where child protection experts have confirmed that there is need to direct money so that it reaches the child. This is particularly a concern when it comes to parents who are abusing drugs. Money can be channelled away from necessary household resources and into sustaining parents’ drug use. As a result, a child’s material needs for food, shelter, clothing, hygiene and medical care may well be neglected. The Victorian Department of Human Services reported that in 2000-01 about a third of parents of children and young people entering foster care reported having problems with alcohol abuse and a third had other substance abuse problems. It was also suggested that increasing levels of substance abuse was one of the main reasons for the increasing numbers of children entering the child protection system.

Labor’s child protection framework will be designed to promote positive parenting and the best interests of children. Under this national framework, child protection authorities will be given the power to require parents who neglect their children to spend part of their family and welfare payments on essentials, such as food, rent, electricity and gas for the home, and school uniforms and books. I do not believe that it is substantially different from the government’s proposals.

Federal Labor has also endorsed the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership’s welfare reform plan for the Cape York communities. We have agreed to fund and implement a range of initiatives to make family and welfare payments and housing conditional on school attendance and the proper care of children. Another key recommendation is to establish the first four family responsibilities commissions—local statutory bodies which will ensure that welfare payments go towards the benefit of children. We support this model of reform for the Cape communities. We are pleased to see it given voice in the legislation before us today.

We would also like to say that we give support to the government’s proposal to quarantine a portion of income support payments in designated areas in the Northern Territory, subject to proper review after the first 12 months. There are two core reasons for supporting an initial quarantining of all income support payments in the Territory. First, the authors of the Little children are sacred report point out that the Northern Territory child protection system, which might be expected to recommend which parent should be eligible for quarantining, is hampered in its ability to respond effectively to child sexual abuse and other child maltreatment. This is because small, geographically isolated communities—affecting up to 50 per cent of the Territory’s population—generally have limited access to health, welfare, education and other support services. In addition, while most other state and territory jurisdictions can call upon a substantial network of NGOs to provide child and family support, there is a general lack of child and family support infrastructure across the Territory which is particularly evident in the most remote Aboriginal communities. It is our view that at present a targeted quarantining regime therefore may not be effective in the Territory for this initial period. We need to consider a more targeted quarantining regime similar to that proposed for other areas in the longer term, subject to the outcome of the 12-month review which we have foreshadowed.

The second reason for our acceptance of the Northern Territory welfare payment quarantining provisions is a concern that the behaviour of adult members of often overcrowded houses has a direct impact on children’s safety and wellbeing. We need parents to be responsible at a whole-of-community level, but that is not all we need. In the short term, it does no good to have two members of a household avoiding expenditure on alcohol, for instance, when other adults can continue to bring it in. For the sake of the children, I believe that this short-term measure is justified. But we should be careful to review its success or otherwise in dealing with the core issue of child safety. We must be hard-headed about these reforms, and that means measuring their effectiveness within a reasonable period of time. That is why a Labor government would review their application after 12 months of operation.

The government have indicated in briefings to the opposition that they are confident that their legislation does not offend the Racial Discrimination Act. Nevertheless, we have sought advice in the limited time available, and on the basis of that advice we share the government’s confidence. We also think that it is important to ensure that the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory are in no doubt that these measures are for their benefit. As legislators, we should be sending a clear message that we have confidence in this plan, we have confidence that it will be of benefit to the people of the Northern Territory and we have confidence that it will achieve results against the aim that has been set for it, which is the protection of our children. In doing so, we must observe the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act. This is a basic principle for this House, a basic principle for this country and a basic principle for the Indigenous community of this country.

The current emergency plan does not provide detail on the longer term strategies required to lift Indigenous communities out of their current situation. In fact, the Little children are sacred report contained 97 recommendations in all, and they bear further examination by both levels of government. Pat Anderson and Rex Wild have produced a comprehensive report which places the protection of children at the centre of government responsibilities. As a result, they propose reforms that touch on almost every aspect of community life and that have implications for every area of government: housing, child protection, education and infrastructure. These 97 recommendations should be the subject of intensive examination by government in terms of providing a long-term systemic response to the totality of the problem faced in the Northern Territory.

Governments require a long-term vision for the protection of children and a plan which therefore has some basis of long-term success. Therefore, once we have dealt with the immediate task of protecting children we must turn our minds to the reforms and investments required to provide long-term hope for these children and the wider Indigenous community. The measure of our success in Indigenous policy is the health, wellbeing and economic participation of Indigenous peoples. We know today that, on almost any measure you choose, we are failing. There must be concerted action for the future. Indigenous children’s literacy and numeracy skills are substantial worse than those of other Australian children. According to the 2005 National report on schooling in Australia, the number of Indigenous children who meet the reading benchmarks falls from 78 per cent in year 3 to 63 per cent in year 7. The number of Indigenous children who meet the numeracy benchmarks falls from 80 per cent in year 3 to 48 per cent in year 7. Indigenous school retention rates for year 10 through year 12 were 45 per cent in 2005, compared with 76 per cent for non-Indigenous students—and these figures exclude the 10 to 20 per cent of Indigenous students who did not complete year 10.

Life expectancy at birth for Indigenous men is 60 years compared with 77 years for all Australian males. For Indigenous women life expectancy at birth is 65 years, whereas for all Australian females it is 82 years. Infant mortality rates for Indigenous children are unacceptably high. Indigenous babies are 3.5 times more likely to die in their first year than non-Indigenous babies. In 2007 that is a disgrace. During 2004-05 Indigenous people were more than four times as likely to be in hospital for alcohol related mental and behavioural disorders than other people. The national imprisonment rate for 100,000 Indigenous adults in 2005-06 was 2,030 compared with a rate of 118 for non-Indigenous adults. In May this year, at the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, I said that these figures represented a blight on the nation’s soul. We must simply do better, and on this side of the House we are committed so to doing.

On the day the Prime Minister announced his intention to intervene to protect the children in the Northern Territory I said that we would offer our in-principle bipartisan support. Let us be blunt: this emergency plan is far from perfect. We are, however, prepared on this side of the House to give it a go and we commend the proposals we have put to the government by way of amendment for their serious consideration. The attitude we bring to bear to this problem in the Northern Territory is one of wanting to fix the problem and to identify solutions that work, rather than engaging in the perpetual blame game between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories on the one hand and between our two sides of politics on the other. It is time for action on behalf of all Aboriginal people, in particular Aboriginal children subject to abuse. (Time expired)

See this speech in context