Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

by its very nature must limit the freedoms of Aboriginal people. I spoke in Darwin about the 1886 Coranderrk petition by William Barak, who lamented that his people were not able to leave their reservations when they needed to and that they were deprived of the basic rights to make their own decisions.

The motion congratulates the communities in Ceduna and the East Kimberley for their work with government in helping to design the trial, and I do agree with that sentiment. But I also note that the grassroots Aboriginal communities in Ceduna and in the Kimberley have raised concerns directly with me that they have not been properly consulted. Early success cannot be used as an excuse to impose this system on more communities without consultation and cooperation.

I have noted in recent weeks that the government is yet to announce a new trial site for the program. I was the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs in New South Wales when the third trial site was supposed to be Moree, and the Moree community would have nothing of it. I urged the government not to react by forcing an unwilling community to take part. That would be the return of paternalism in its worst form.

If the trial is working, and I hope it is, it is only because the government is engaging with the local community and allowing their voices to be heard. If those opposite believe that this is working purely because it limits welfare funding, they do not understand the nature of disadvantage.

I would also like to note for this place that the wording of the motion is problematic. Welfare does not fuel alcohol dependence or drug addiction. These are symptoms of much deeper problems. While removing the ability of addicts to purchase alcohol or drugs will help in the short term, it will not solve those underlying issues. What is required is proper treatment centres, not an imposed so-called solution. Those issues can only be solved by people on the ground and well-funded and culturally appropriate social outreach programs. If you ignore the cyclical nature of these issues you are only treating the symptoms, not the cause.

I am glad to hear of some positive changes very early on, but I urge those opposite not to see some positive results as a reason to return to the dark old days of paternalism and punitive measures. We have seen time and time again that punitive measures and paternalistic approaches do not work. They will not work. They never have worked and they will not do so in the future. I join with the member for Grey in welcoming some early positive outcomes, but I also say that this cannot go anywhere without a proper evaluation. And it is just not fair.

See this speech in context