Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we all appreciate, in recent months many members of the House have contributed to what is a very important debate: the debate about improving the lives and opportunities of our Aboriginal communities. It is a passionate topic and there can be no doubt that most Australians feel deeply about the dire situation of Aboriginal communities throughout the length and breadth of Australia. But the problems in these communities are ongoing and a great challenge to all of us. The recent flurry of media attention, which has also attracted some attention in question time, is important in raising awareness, but it also highlights the need for a consistent and cooperative approach by government.

The proactive approach taken by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is to be welcomed after a decade of neglect by this government. Perhaps there is some doubt in the minds of others about whether he is as sincere as he ought to be, but he is clearly acting on bad advice, which we believe is reactionary and divisive. The minister has called for a joint response but then berates the states and territories when they do not do as he pleases. So much for cooperation.

Reasonable people understand the need for greater services in these communities, whether they be for policing, health or education. But the minister’s quick fix, singular swaggering style is an anathema to the Indigenous communities he purports to be assisting. It is a one-size-fits-all approach imposed from on high, from Canberra. The transparent nature of this was revealed when the Minister for Health and Ageing called for a new form of ‘paternalism’ in Indigenous communities—a pretty unfortunate use of language that has quickly put Indigenous community leaders, and the Indigenous community at large, offside.

The reality we all appreciate is that there are no quick fixes to make up for the neglect of these communities by governments of all political persuasions at a state and federal level over an extended period. This is an increasingly complex area of social policy for government that must be addressed in a sophisticated way and with a long-term vision and commitment. After so many years crossing the divide between white culture and black ways, it is simplistic to assume that bringing in the troops, so to speak, or police, as in this case, will be the solution.

Research findings from the Indigenous Community Governance Project conducted by the ANU last year show that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions to these problems. The project found that building governance in Aboriginal communities must be based on local realities and opportunities. Minister Brough’s recent attempt to stamp out customary law in order to deal with abuse in communities ignores the importance of historical, political and cultural relationships that have shaped governance in Indigenous communities. Such governance must:

… resonate with traditional relationships, jurisdictions, laws, customs, and specific histories. In other words, there will be no single model suitable for all community governance.

Minister Brough might therefore be wise to take some advice from the project’s authors, who state that in Aboriginal communities:

Leadership is not the same as power. There are strong norms about consensus, negotiation and consultation associated with leadership—leaders are expected to come back to their community constituents to discuss information and ideas with them.

Aboriginal communities might have more faith in dealing with this government if it had consistently provided the education and health services so desperately needed. On this point, let the figures speak for themselves. We have social indicators which read more like the Third World than an industrialised, wealthy nation like Australia, currently receiving the huge benefit of a major international resource boom.

This leads me to the commitment given recently by the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, at Wadeye, in the Northern Territory. He stated that in the first two terms of parliament with him as Prime Minister he would do his absolute best to turn the problems of Indigenous health around. This is because, according to the Australian Medical Association, in 1999-2000 the life expectancy of Indigenous men was 56.3 years as opposed to 77 years for non-Indigenous men. This effectively means that non-Indigenous men have a life expectancy that is between 45 and 50 per cent longer than Indigenous men.

For women the difference in life expectancy was 62.8 years as opposed to 82.4 years. Further, a report by the Centre for Remote Health, a joint venture between Flinders University and Charles Darwin University, has shown that between 1979 and 1995 one-fifth of all deaths amongst Indigenous people related to five chronic health diseases: kidney, or renal disease; diabetes; high blood pressure, or hypertension; and heart attack and related heart diseases.

There are obviously ways to build the social fabric of these societies, and they start with health and education, not police officers. Young Indigenous students are twice as likely as non-Indigenous students to have left school before completing year 10, and are half as likely to have completed year 12. That is why undertakings, such as that by the major resource company Comalco, at Weipa, are exceptionally important. Such an undertaking provides that if any Indigenous child completes year 10, they are guaranteed a job in the mining industry in Weipa. This is the type of leadership—in a practical way at a local level—we require to make progress on this huge challenge to Australia.

The figures on education are borne out not only with respect to those who complete school but also, unfortunately and obviously, with respect to university opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are less than a quarter as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to go to university. Moreover, the number attending university has unfortunately declined since 1999. For the first time since the 1990s, there has been a decline in the number of Indigenous students in vocational education, at a time when we have an absolute shortage of tradespeople in Australia.

In terms of economic opportunities for Australia, just think about why we should get vocational education right. Just think about where the mining industry is—in remote, rural and regional Australia—and think about the hospitality opportunities in similar areas. Getting the people in our Indigenous communities to remain at school, to undertake apprenticeships and to attend university is not only a good investment for the social fabric of these communities but is also a smart investment for the private sector, because Indigenous communities are a very valuable source of labour in areas where we are finding it harder and harder to attract people to work and live and create an opportunity for themselves and their families.

I therefore say that neglect of Aboriginal communities is creating—and we should all be ashamed—a pool of young, unemployed, drug-dependent men turning to crime. It is our responsibility, collectively, to put the politics aside from this debate and work out how the government—in a cooperative model involving state, territory and local governments in partnership with the private sector—can turn this around. It is important because servicing the problems that exist in these communities represents a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars.

As an example, let us go to the issue of crime rates. Interestingly, crime rates in Indigenous communities are not that different from some the crime rates of the suburbs in the electorates we represent, where we have the same problems—no education opportunities and no employment opportunities. So it is a problem across Australia, not just in the Indigenous communities, and it points to a requirement to try to do something in these hard suburbs in our capital cities and our regional cities and also in remote rural and regional Australia.

The opposition has therefore called on the federal government to commit to long-term, recurrent funding for measures to address violence and abuse in Indigenous communities. There are many instances where the Australian government has cut funding from programs designed to address the problems in Indigenous communities. For example, last year the Australian government unfortunately ceased funding the $20 million juvenile diversion program in the Northern Territory, which helped to fund police activities in Indigenous communities.

Family violence programs were also among those programs cut when the Howard Government slashed ATSIC’s funding in 1996. At Senate estimates sittings just a couple of weeks ago, the Labor Party learned that of $37 million allocated to family violence programs after the Prime Minister’s roundtable in 2003, only a small proportion—roughly $5 million, or 15 per cent—has been spent.

It was also revealed that the women of Wadeye sought help from the federal government to deal with the problems of violence, but they are still waiting on a response. It smacks of hypocrisy, therefore, for the minister to want to be seen to be doling out cash to resolve these problems when, at the same time, this government has been ignoring the cry for help from these communities.

It takes a series of abhorrent news images for this government to do something. But the response to date has been dogmatic, and a case of too little, too late. Let us make a few changes to try to work out a cooperative model involving the private sector. I believe that where there is a will there is a way, provided the minister is prepared to take the politics out of the debate. I believe that the premiers, chief ministers and local council representatives are prepared to do the same. I challenge the minister today to learn from the error of his ways. There is too much at stake for Australia, economically and socially. (Time expired)