Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My colleague reminds me the ones that fly in on a regular basis are more aptly referred to as seagulls. Indigenous people are sick and tired of them. They are sick and tired of being told that the task is easy—nominate, volunteer, participate—and then, because that particular program fails, the individuals involved are criticised for being worthless. The tolerance of members of remote Indigenous communities wears thin. They have been tested, trained, put over the hurdles, cajoled and accused time and time again.

The last time that we saw a quantum leap in the advancement and wellbeing of Indigenous people after the arrival of the First Fleet was probably the arrival of the missionaries across remote Australia. At that point in time education was given. Guidance that was believed to be necessary for assimilation was given. The outcomes of course were much less than the expectations of those missionaries involved, but their intent was great and good and their commitment was great and good. The criticism that they have had heaped upon them since those day is in the main unjustified. I know that in my original patch of Kalgoorlie in the Eastern Goldfields all of the successfully employed and deployed Indigenous people had a solid grounding of education in mission schools—Mount Margaret, Warakurna, Warburton. Further north into the Kimberley there were remarkable institutions such as Balgo, Beagle Bay, Forrest River, Kalumburu. They were establishments that taught. They did not strive for an 18-month or two-year cultural experience to enjoy the romance of it all and then go back home and dine out on it for the next 20 years, which is so often the case today. They were actually committed to the task. They then were often pilloried for their involvement in conditions that were considered unacceptable to the delicate nature of urban dwellers. Today, we are faced with a debate on legislation that is once again going to regulate the behaviour of Indigenous communities. As I said, in the main it is regulation that was introduced by the Howard government as a matter of necessity. It was necessary then, it is necessary now and it should be embraced. Any opportunity to impose more rigour on that legislation should be taken, because as legislators we cannot afford to simply wish to avoid offence. There has been far too much of that on the part of legislators in the past.

My Indigenous friends across the Durack electorate understand discipline. They understand the necessity for rigour. They understand the necessity for their children and grandchildren to get an education. I am speaking in the main of those people who got their education at the hands of the missionaries and got jobs on pastoral stations. Those people absolutely deplore the current situation where sit-down money is paid. There is no rigour in expectations of the performance of Indigenous individuals or collective communities.

There is very little respect for the concept of mutual obligation. There is almost an epidemic condition where people say, 'We may be expected by departments on high to make a performance at such and such a level, but past experience tells us that we will never be expected to reach that level so why should it bother.' That condition and that experience do not teach discipline. It does not teach the individual that they will stand out in a group by putting their shoulder to the wheel and going the extra yard, and being rewarded for it. They will more likely remember the experience of sticking their head up and being noticed, and possibly having their head knocked off, figuratively speaking, because they took the initiative to do something.

All of our policies to date have been more about ticking boxes, presuming that those who are ignorant of the real conditions will accept our platitudes, our cheque-writing and our visitation as something that will seriously contribute to the betterment of Indigenous people. The reality is that it could not be further from the truth. What we need is a number of people who are truly committed to getting a job done, a number of people whose continued employment will depend on their performance rather than their processing of numbers. We need a group of people who understand rigour and the necessity for it to realise great outcomes for communities. We need a group of people who understand that without rigour Indigenous people will have no respect whatsoever for the agents of change that are visiting their communities.

Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, I know that you know I speak from experience and I speak from the heart, but it is an ongoing and long-term project to educate all the members of this House as to what really should be done and what really is expected in remote Indigenous communities across Australia. The most important ingredient I believe is rigour. That rigour must be found in all dealings we have with those communities. The first step in the development of a human being is education. If we do not get that education right and if we do not make that process attractive for the families of Indigenous children, they will never be engaged in the process of insisting that their children attend school. This legislation will make some small contribution if applied with rigour to ensure that that is the outcome and individuals get their lives back.

See this speech in context