Warren Snowdon's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Suspension Of Standing And Sessional Orders | Business | House debates
Valedictory | Parliamentary Representation | House debates
Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this country, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and the traditional owners where I live, in Mparntwe country, the Central Arrernte...
Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of this country, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and the traditional owners where I live, in Mparntwe country, the Central Arrernte people. It's an honour and a great privilege to be here, and it always has been. Just to contextualise what I'm about to say: the Northern Territory first got representation in this parliament 100 years ago in the election of 1922, when Harold Nelson—HG—was elected as a Labor candidate into this parliament. I was first elected in 1987—that's 35 years ago—and have been in the parliament for 32 years: 12 as the member for the Northern Territory and 20 as the member for Lingiari. My good friend in my neighbouring seat is Comrade Gosling, the member for Solomon. Over that period, I have been really, really fortunate—in the context of Labor members of parliament, extremely fortunate. I've had 15 years in government, six years as a parliamentary secretary in the Hawke and Keating years, and six years as a minister in Rudd and Gillard years. But the truth of it is that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for so many others. Yes, I was fortunate enough to be given those opportunities, but it's the good people of the Northern Territory and the Indian Ocean Territories that I owe the most. They are the reason I'm here, and I want to thank them for their ongoing support and friendship. My No. 1 priority since coming to this parliament has been to advocate for and represent them in this place. Just as a reminder, Lingiari is 1.34 million square kilometres, and the Indian Ocean Territories, way off there in the Indian Ocean, are often forgotten by so many, but they have had the travails and trauma of the Tampa, children overboard and deaths at sea. My good friends in the Cocos Islands—just such a wonderful community. So it's a very dispersed electorate, from the Red Centre where I live, to the north and the Indian Ocean Territories. It has a wonderfully diverse population, although 42 per cent are Aboriginal people, for whom I am most thankful. The overwhelming support of Aboriginal people has meant I have been here election after election—11 successful elections and one which I lost. As an indication, at the last federal election, there were 194 mobile polling booths in the Northern Territory, and across those booths I received 80 per cent of the vote. That's an indication and the reason why I'm here. My motivation: well, I should just say I'm here because I've been so fortunate to be elected. But I actually grew up just down the road in Narrabundah. I never visited this joint when I was a kid. I never had ambitions to be a member of parliament. My first visit to Old Parliament House was when I was working in the Department of Trade and I was carrying ministerials over to John McEwen's office. That's a while ago! And I'm not the only Snowdon ever to seek election. This will be for my mates over there in the rural rump—I beg your pardon, my National Party comrades! My grandfather, Percy Claude Snowdon, stood as an independent Country Party member for the seat of Murray Valley in the 1945 Victorian state election. Thankfully, his political journey didn't pass on to me! My motivation for seeking election in the first place was driven by my involvement in my church, community and sporting organisations, the mighty trade union movement and my job as a teacher. But perhaps the most important influence was that of Dr HC Coombs and Dr Maria Brandell, whom I worked with on a project in the Pitjantjatjara homelands in the late seventies and early eighties. Dr Coombs was a magnificent and wonderful Australian who became a mentor of mine. After I left that university job, I went back to teaching. And then I was fortunate enough to go and work at the Central Land Council in Alice Springs where my boss was Patrick Dodson—now Senator Patrick Dodson. Our bosses were the traditional owners of Central Australia, and they taught me such a great deal and motivated me to want to become a member of this parliament. But I have to say that my parliamentary journey over this 35 years would not have been possible without the love, support and sacrifice of my wife, Elizabeth, and our children Frankie, Tom, Tess and Jack. Elizabeth, my partner for 40 years now, took upon herself the primary responsibility of raising and nurturing our wonderful children and maintaining our household. I simply don't have words that do you justice, Elizabeth, or that are adequate to express my love and gratitude. Our first child, Frankie, was born a fortnight before the first election. I was on the road in Tennant Creek electioneering. I rang the midwife that night and said, 'What's it look like, is Elizabeth okay?' The midwife said, 'Everything's fine, don't worry, don't hurry back.' I woke up at about 3 o'clock in the morning and thought, 'No, that doesn't sound right.' So I woke up the person who was driving me, my good friend, and I said, 'Do you mind if we go back to Alice Springs, I think there might be something happening.' So we arrived back in Alice Springs and turned up at the house, in Chewings Street, and no-one was there. And I said, 'God, bugger me dead, what's happened?' So we go to the hospital, go to the maternity ward, and there's Frankie, with her mum, being wheeled out of the birthing suite. So I missed you—I'm sorry! I don't think you've suffered as a result—at least, I hope not! Over the next years Tom, Tess and Jack came along. Elizabeth took 12 years out of the paid workforce, from her profession as a teacher, until young Jack went to school. We're so proud of the four of them. They are wonderful human beings. I'm sorry that I wasn't around for you. Prior to the COVID period, I was only home around eight nights a month over that 30-odd years journey. So I missed all those important days—birthdays, school events and all of those things. I also want to thank, and acknowledge the sacrifice, loyalty and friendship of, all those who have supported me over the period—the members of the Northern Territory Labor Party, my union comrades, the volunteers, all of those who make it possible for us to be here. I know that all of you all understand that, while you might be the poster boy or girl, in fact you're only there because of those who are behind you, and I'm ever so grateful. I also want to thank those electorate and ministerial staff that I had the great fortune to work with over many years. They effectively became my second family. Their dedication, friendship, professionalism, loyalty and resilience have been essential for me to be able to carry out my job. My closest comrades were always in my electoral office. There are two who I'll mention: Carol Bourke and Jack Crosby were two wonderful, wonderful human beings, who passed away whilst in the job. They were the truest of comrades, friends, advisors and, of course, fearless critics until the end. While I'm giving the thankyous, I'd like to obviously thank all of the parliamentary staff: the cleaners, the gym staff, Hansard, security, the attendants, the clerks, the sergeant's office, the Speaker, the nurses, the gardeners, the caterers, the volunteers, the terrific library staff, who are so vital to what we do; the staff of Aussies, who keep the caffeine up; and, of course, the Transport Office and the drivers, who look after us around Australia; and the airline staff, with who I've become so friendly. I think I spent close to two years flying over that period, and I've come to know those flight attendants really very, very well. Let's now talk about the journey. It was a different world in 1987. There were no mobile phones and no internet. My first office had a computer and a fax machine. I travelled for days around the electorate without any form of communication back to home base. I recall my first speech down there in the Old Parliament House, with my mum and dad in the Speaker's gallery and Elizabeth with Frankie upstairs with a great friend. My first office was in Old Parliament House, a poky little joint on the Senate side. It was around nine square metres. You couldn't swing a cat, and you certainly couldn't have more than one visitor. My neighbour at the time, my first neighbour, was John Hewson, who was also elected at that election. So life in Old Parliament House was so, so far different from what you lucky buggers have got here! Until we arrived here in 1988, there was very scant security. The parliamentary bar was a constant buzz and a meeting place of literally all sorts. I'd had experience of being in that place a couple of years prior with Patrick, now Senator Dodson. We were involved with the Northern Territory Land Council and campaigning against changes which the then Hawke government wanted to make over land rights, particularly national land rights. We were keen to prevent them falling into the trap which had been set by Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, who opposed national land rights. We were unwilling and we campaigned to make sure that no legislation passed that undermine the existing rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory in the Northern Territory land rights act, and we were successful. Over the years, of course, you meet some really wonderful people. Very early on, Gerry Hand became a very close friend, along with Nick Bolkus and, after the 1990 election, Simon Crean and Daryl Melham. Over the last 20 years or thereabouts, I've shared accommodation with now lifelong friends—Nick Bolkus for a while and Simon Crean. When Nick retired from this place, we were looking for someone to stay, so we auditioned a few. We interviewed Brendan. He was the successful candidate, poor bugger! An honourable member: Tell us about the initiation! That's right! But that house in Narrabundah has some wonderful memories, and if only the walls could talk. The dinners, the plotting, the planning, the conniving, the arguments—they all took place there. Some of that had more than a passing impact on events in this place. At some point, if those walls could talk, you'd hear some stories. Thankfully, you won't hear them from me! The ALP caucus is an interesting beast. Over the years, there have been some very unique characters, all with a lot to offer: lively policy debates, leadership ballots, vacancy ballots. I lost one once! It didn't make me happy! An opposition member: That's democracy. Yes, that's democracy, as my comrade says. I have to say, over the years, it's become a much tamer affair. You need to lift your game! But I do enjoy the friendship of my caucus colleagues, particularly our regular Thursday night dinners, which are an opportunity to decompress, have a yarn or just be plain silly. And there's a lot of that happening. But the outstanding and positive change that has come to our caucus is its feminisation. In 1988, only nine per cent or thereabouts of our members on the House of Representatives floor were women. It's now 48 per cent, and after the next election it will be over 50 per cent. That's all because of the hard work done by women in our caucus. Thank you. And there is the wonderful legacy of Julia Gillard, as our nation's first female Prime Minister. Now I know for certain that the pathway to leadership is open to all women in our caucus. A few blokes have got to loosen their grip a bit, but that will happen—don't worry! The most recent reckoning of the abuse of women in the parliamentary workforce and in the workplace, and the acceptance of the need for action and cultural change, is welcome and long overdue. There are a lot of things I could talk about about being a minister, but there simply isn't time, and I wouldn't do justice to the very many people I had the great good fortune to work with in the various portfolios. I have great memories of those times, and it was a great honour and a great privilege, but I do want to mention a couple of things about the caucus that I wasn't happy about. There were decisions taken by the caucus that I opposed. I kept caucus solidarity, but, of all the decisions, the one that caused me most concern was the decision by the Howard government to intervene in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which I strongly opposed. I also strongly opposed the abolition of ATSIC and the decision to ban live cattle exports from the Northern Territory. These decisions were unnecessary and caused hurt and harm. In the case of the intervention in the Northern Territory, the repercussions are still being felt. The trauma is still there. In relation to the ministerial responsibilities, what I learnt, and what reaffirmed my belief in public service, was the importance of the people in the public service who work for ministers. It reaffirmed in me the belief in a strong, independent public service in the Coombs tradition. An independent public service is central to our democracy and system of government, and I want to thank those many fine public servants with whom I had the good fortune to work, as well as those thousands of people who work in public service offices around this country, working for us. I think it's well past the time for another review of the type of the Coombs royal commission of the 1970s. I was going to talk about the parliament, but I'm aware that time is passing. I just want to make the observation that it is such a great privilege to be in this parliament debating, representing the interests of our constituents. There could be no finer job to be done. Work as a parliamentarian is the best work. We might throw barbs across the chamber, but the reality is we're all here for a good purpose. We might disagree but—if we do show some respect for one another, as we should—despite the political rhetoric and the barbs that are thrown, we are here for a good purpose, and the people of Australia rely upon us to do that job. I want to comment on the parliamentary committee process, and I see the Chair of the Indigenous Affairs Committee, Julian Leeser, is here and the Chair of the Northern Australia Joint Committee, Warren Entsch, is here. They are two committees that I've been involved with for a long time, as well as the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I've enjoyed. I have to say that these committees work really, really effectively because of the bipartisan way in which we address the issues and the respect that we show to one another and to those who appear before us. So I want to say to people here—and it's just so sad—that the recommendations which come out of those committees are so often shelved when, in fact, they should be the guiding light for what happens. At the very outset of this wonderful journey that I've been involved in, I made clear in my first speech that my priority and desire to represent and advocate for the interests of First Australians was my most significant responsibility. So I've sought to have this place understand the need to address the injustices experienced by Aboriginal people, and to have people's rights as First Australians properly recognised and addressed and their needs met. But if I look at the past 32 years in this place, the outcomes, sadly, have often been very frustrating and sadly disappointing. And First Australians' needs have not been met. So many remain marginalised and in poverty, living in poor and overcrowded housing with scandalous levels of preventable, chronic disease. In my view, this is largely driven by the institutionalised racism that has been so much part of government since Federation and by the ongoing refusal to accept the need for truth-telling and acknowledgement of past and continuing injustice. Over the time I've been in this place, there have been periods of great hope—and then times of great disappointment. I've mentioned the Hawke government as being a bit of a disappointment on the issue of national land rights, but they did so many very other good things. At the time of the Barunga Statement and the call for a treaty in June 1988, Prime Minister Hawke said in a document that he signed: … we would expect and hope and work for the conclusion of such a treaty before the end of the life of this Parliament. Sadly, that was not to be. It was not to be, because we couldn't get the support of the then opposition parties. A tangible indication of positive change was the establishment of ATSIC. ATSIC gave First Australians a voice and decision-making responsibilities at a regional and national level. Sadly, it had its demise under the Howard government. A very significant victory, and a very important victory, for the Jawoyn people of the country adjacent to Kakadu National Park came when Prime Minister Hawke used his personal authority in cabinet to prevent mining at Coronation Hill—that is, Guratba, the home of Bulla. That was in spite of trenchant opposition from sections of cabinet and caucus. I want to quote from an article by Sid Maher in 2015 in which he quotes Bob Hawke at the time: Mr Hawke said that when the issue came before cabinet and there was support for the mining proposal, 'I was annoyed beyond measure by the attitude of many of my colleagues, of their cynical dismissal of the beliefs of the Jawoyn people.' He challenged cabinet that those who opposed the Jawoyn position essentially were saying that the traditional owners were talking 'bullshit'. 'I think I made probably one of the strongest and bitterest attacks I ever made on my colleagues in the cabinet,' Mr Hawke said. He said there was no doubt this contributed to his loss of the prime ministership to Paul Keating later in 1991. Mr Hawke said he attacked the 'monumental hypocrisy' of cabinet rejecting the Jawoyn's beliefs about their god while the same people who denigrated that belief 'can easily accommodate and embrace the bundle of mysteries which make up their white Christian beliefs'. He said this 'supercilious supremacist discrimination' was abhorrent to everything he held to be important Labor beliefs. That was a historically important moment. Then we had reconciliation. Patrick Dodson was appointed the chair of the reconciliation council. Paul Keating pursued reconciliation and gave that momentous speech in Redfern Park in December 1992. For the first time, the Prime Minister spoke about dispossession, violence, prejudice and injustice suffered by First Australians. He then was responsible for initiating the passage of the Native Title Act, following the High Court decision in Mabo, and, in 1994, the Keating government adopted racial hatred legislation, including section 18C. In 1995, the Keating government commissioned the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, with Commissioner Sir Roland Wilson and Pat's brother Mick. The Bringing them home report was tabled in 1997, but, sadly, Prime Minister Howard obdurately and obstinately refused to apologise to the stolen generations. So, sadly, the election of the Howard government brought a crash into despair. ATSIC was pre-emptively scrapped. Self-determination and self-management as drivers for public policy were also scrapped. The most debilitating decision for people in my electorate was the decision by the Howard government for the intervention. There were attacks on native title. In 1996 after the Wik High Court case, the then Deputy Prime Minister attacked the High Court judges as being activists. That resulted in what then became the Howard 10-point plan, which depleted the rights of Aboriginal people as native title holders, broadened the power of federal and state governments to extinguish native title and made the initiating of claims difficult and very restrictive. That needn't have happened, but it did. Unwinding the intervention was a significant challenge for the Rudd and Gillard governments. The initiative to close the gap was most welcome, but, despite the rhetoric, sadly, little has changed. Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generation was of momentous, historical importance and significance. It marked a huge step forward. But the gathering at Uluru and the Statement from the Heart in May 2017 have provided the opportunity to reset the agenda. There is simply no excuse now, in 2022, for any government to walk away from the need for constitutional recognition of a voice to the parliament, truth-telling and a process of treaty. So, when I reflect on my over three decades in this place, I remain appalled at the failure of successive governments to come to terms with our First Peoples and accord them the recognition and the justice that is their due or, despite the rhetoric so often heard about closing the gap, to even do the simplest things by addressing the harshest poverty suffered by so many and providing them with adequate and safe housing that would do so much to change their lives. The housing crisis requires the investment of billions, not millions. That is an investment that would make such a difference to Aboriginal people in my electorate and elsewhere across the country. The COVID crisis has, in plain sight, reaffirmed the appalling result of overcrowded housing. If you're at all serious about improving health, education and employment outcomes then the housing crisis must be addressed. It's urgent. If we are to stop preventable diseases, such as rheumatic heart disease, then we must fix the housing problem. There are so many other things that need to be done, some of which flow from the inquiry into the destruction of Indigenous heritage at Juukan Gorge. My colleague Patrick Dodson was there. This involves the need to domesticate into Australian law the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Australia is a signatory but has not yet domesticated it into Australian law. Most importantly, we need to incorporate the principle of free, prior and informed consent into all laws. Following me, I hope, in this parliament will be a great Australian, Marion Scrymgour. She will be the candidate for the Labor Party. She's an Aboriginal woman of leadership and distinction and a former deputy chief minister of the Northern Territory. I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues from the Northern Territory who have served in this place: Bob Collins, who as a senator was my close friend; Senator Trish Crossin; Senator Nova Peris; and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. I thank them for their friendship. I now want to conclude by, again, emphasising my heartfelt thanks for being given the honour of serving here. There cannot be a greater honour. I hope that all of you appreciate the importance of your presence here and the importance of making sure we have good government. It's going to be sad for me to leave this joint. It's been my life. I want to conclude by quoting Patrick Dodson at the National Press Club in 1985. I remember this speech because not only was I working for Patrick at the time but we had as an editor Mungo MacCallum. I'll just finish with this quote from Patrick, which I think is as relevant today as it was then: 'If this nation is to ever attempt to wear the mantle of maturity, to have any sense of pride and independence, to claim it is a just and fair society, you must first negotiate with us, the traditional owners of this country, the people you have sought to conquer. Non-Aboriginal Australians have an obligation to negotiate with us not simply on the basis of imposing preconceived interpretations of what rights we can have from you through governments but on the basis of justice and equity.' Thank you.
Northern Australia Joint Committee; Report | Committees | House debates
by leave—I thank Mr Entsch, as he walks out the door. While he's still here, I want to acknowledge—I want to talk about you, so get in!—that this will be the last occasion that...
by leave—I thank Mr Entsch, as he walks out the door. While he's still here, I want to acknowledge—I want to talk about you, so get in!—that this will be the last occasion that I'll get to speak to a committee report by this committee as a member of parliament. Firstly, I want to acknowledge how well the committee has worked over a number of years and the cooperation from the chair to us. I really do commend the chair for making sure that all views were included and for working collaboratively to get an agreed outcome on our inquiries. Both the member for Leichhardt and the member for Lilley have outlined some of the important aspects of the recommendations in this report, but I think it needs to be seen as a piece of work which will be ongoing. It's not something of which we can say, 'We've done the job; we've made these recommendations.' It will require us to make sure that governments and this parliament are held to account for ensuring that the recommendations in this report are, as far as possible, carried out. Most importantly, that will mean carrying on the work of this committee in inquiring into Juukan Gorge, and some of the recommendations in this report flow directly from that inquiry. In particular, recommendation 9 of this report flows, in a way, from the Juukan Gorge report, which made a number of recommendations, including something which I think is well overdue now, and that is a review of the Native Title Act to ensure that we're properly funding prescribed bodies corporate and representative bodies so that they can properly represent the interests of traditional owners and native title holders. I think there also needs to be a bit of education going on so that people understand the difference between native title, as it exists across the country in its various forms, and land rights, as they exist, in this case, in the Northern Territory, where there's an inalienable freehold title which can't be bought or sold and which gives Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory very powerful rights of withholding consent for development on their land. I think we need to be paying particular attention to this point, and the Member for Leichhardt referred to it: the importance of acknowledging, and doing something about, and ensuring that legislation in this parliament recognises, the principle of free, prior and informed consent, as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We should be incorporating that in the laws of this country, as they have done in Canada, to make sure that any work which is being done on Aboriginal land or Torres Strait Islander country requires the free, prior and informed consent of the native title holders or traditional owners or those who speak for that country, before any development takes place. That is fundamentally important, in my view, as is the recognition of the fact of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and all that it entails, because I don't think that we, as a nation, have yet understood our obligations in being signatories to that declaration. I will conclude by saying: the recommendations are all worthy. They are the result of quite a detailed discussion with Aboriginal groups, industry groups and Torres Strait Islander groups from across the country over a number of months. We started this inquiry before we started the Juukan Gorge inquiry. This inquiry was, in part, suspended to allow us to do the Juukan Gorge inquiry, and we again took up this inquiry post the Juukan Gorge report being tabled. Again, I want to thank the members of the committee and the secretariat. I say again to the member for Leichhardt that we've enjoyed the opportunity to work with him in his capacity as chair of this committee, and I certainly see it as very important that we acknowledge his work. And I might say—she's gone, but I was going to say that the member for Lilley is a breath of fresh air and I'm very pleased she came onto our committee.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I don't know what I do here. I'm highly embarrassed by those wonderful words, and I thank the member for Monash for that wonderful contribution. I had prepared a speech about veterans affairs,...
I don't know what I do here. I'm highly embarrassed by those wonderful words, and I thank the member for Monash for that wonderful contribution. I had prepared a speech about veterans affairs, which I probably won't use, but I just want to say to the member for Monash and other members in this place that I'm not on my own here. Right across this parliament, on both sides, from all quarters, we have people of commitment and people of character, some of whom we agree with some of the time and some of whom we disagree with all of the time, but what we can be assured of is that, by and large, their motivation is for public service and to represent their communities in the best possible way. I'm not sure whether I'll give a valedictory. I may, but I'm not quite sure how I would address the words of the member for Monash in a way that could do him justice. There was no need for you to make that contribution in the way you did, and I'm very, very grateful. Thank you. I will reflect for a moment on what it was to be Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. I was given what was, I think, a great responsibility but a wonderful opportunity, an opportunity to meet and be part of a broad defence and veterans family. My father had been a serviceman and was TPI. His father and his father's brothers, five of them, went to the First World War. My father's brother went to the Second World War. My uncles went to the war. So we had a tradition of service. I was in the Citizen Military Forces, a cut-lunch soldier, for a few years. So to be given the awesome responsibility of being Minister for Veterans' Affairs was a huge privilege and a dreadfully great honour. What I found was that, by and large, when we worked across the chamber on issues which related to veterans there was very little difference in approach. Michael Ronaldson, as you'll recall, was the shadow minister for a period. It was a privilege to be part of that family and to understand the needs and wants of veterans, understand their service, understand the difficulties they and their families confronted as a result of their service, and understand our nation's obligation to accept responsibility for those people as veterans from the day that walked into Kapooka. The day that they sign on is the date that we sign up to look after their interests for the rest of their life. That doesn't mean we have to be sitting on their shoulders, but clearly, as we've seen, particularly after a very intense period of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, we've hurt people. We as a nation have a responsibility to make sure that those people are given every opportunity to heal. I commend the government for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. I think it's very important. I talked briefly about the privilege of being a minister. I mentioned Villers-Bretonneux; the privilege of giving the Anzac morning address at Gallipoli or V-B; and being involved in the identification of a mass grave at Fromelles. Working with the French and British governments for the exhumation and then the identification of those First World War heroes and then having them buried in a dedicated war service gravesite at Fromelles was really very important. It could not have been done without the tireless work of the Department of Defence's Army History Unit and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Similarly, I accompanied some old special forces soldiers, who had served in Vietnam, to Hanoi. The purpose of this trip was to receive the remains of the last Australian soldier missing in action, Private Fisher, and we were able to accompany him home. That was an enormous privilege and a great honour, and I think it helps me, at least, come to terms with the reality of war: sacrifice, comradeship, struggle, hardship, and the need for us to forever recognise that the hardship, the struggle and the sacrifice are borne not only by those soldiers themselves but by their families. So, when we look at this legislation, we use just one marker: how does it make life better for someone? To me, it appears that this type of legislation that we are talking about today will make life easier. We will have our differences about the issues of the TPI Federation and their requests for more resources, and we can have those discussions, but what we have to do is agree that across the parliament we have but one responsibility: to look after them and to make sure they get the best opportunity and the best service. I think my comrade next to me may know the figure, but I think we've had in excess of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and air men and women serve in our longest war. When I finished as a minister in 2013, we were only halfway through. We have the issues which have emerged now and which are the subject of the royal commission, and we have an enormous responsibility to address those issues. But I have to say that the motivation of those people who are servants of the community in the Department of Veterans' Affairs should really be understood. They do their utmost, given the restrictions we place upon them, to do the best they possibly can for veterans. I know I have spent very little time talking about the legislation, but, having felt quite embarrassed, I thought I should respond in some way. I again thank the member for Monash. Member for Monash, as I said in a contribution earlier today about you, I hope you will reconsider your thoughts about walking away from the chair of the Privileges Committee. It's very important that you stay there, and I know that's a feeling which is shared across the parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I won't take up any more of your time. Thank you very much.
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee | Privilege | House debates
I just want to make some comments about the contribution by the chair of the Privileges Committee. I don't think it's a matter for him to fall on his sword over. I would say to him that I have...
I just want to make some comments about the contribution by the chair of the Privileges Committee. I don't think it's a matter for him to fall on his sword over. I would say to him that I have been on this committee for many years, over various iterations, going back some time, and, I have to say, the committee under the stewardship of the member for Monash has operated in a completely bipartisan way, with cooperation from everyone on the committee, with great respect for the member for Monash's leadership. I have no idea what the explanation is as to why this matter was leaked to the Guardian, but I concur with you, Member for Monash, on its inference around how the committee operates. I think it is appropriate that you raise it with the Speaker as a matter of privilege. I would ask you most sincerely to reconsider your decision to tender your resignation at the next sitting of the committee. I don't have my other committee comrades from this side of the House in the chamber, but I am certain that I'm speaking on their behalf as well as on behalf of your own party members who are on that committee. Please understand that there is great respect for you in your committee role. This committee, as you rightly pointed out, is a very important committee. It has dealt with a number of very serious allegations, the most recent of which you have tabled today. Those deliberations were held collegiately and were well informed with good advice. I ask you to reconsider your decision. Understand that you have the confidence of the committee.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, but I am sad that it's happening. Despite what the member for Sturt has...
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Voter Integrity) Bill 2021, but I am sad that it's happening. Despite what the member for Sturt has convinced himself of, there is no need for this legislation, and that is abundantly clear. I have experienced, as a candidate, 12 elections, and I've thought all along that our system of voting is fair and good. It's the best in the world, but it can be improved. But it will not be improved by discouraging people from voting, and that's precisely what this legislation will do. It will impact upon the most marginalised people in the country: people who have difficulty with language and people who may have an issue with their health. Most particularly, it will have a dramatic and negative impact on Aboriginal people who live in remote communities. Forty-two per cent or thereabouts of my electors in Lingiari are Aboriginal people. What will happen with this legislation is that an already very poor turnout of Aboriginal people will be further lowered. In June 2020, the proportion of eligible Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory on the roll was 68.7 per cent, so 31.3 per cent of Aboriginal people who were eligible to be on the roll were not. In the case of Western Australia, the figure was 67.6 per cent. At the last election, there were 42 remote polling teams covering 387 communities. There were 23,503 ordinary votes cast and 5,262 declaration votes cast. In the Northern Territory alone, for Lingiari there were 20 remote polling teams covering around 200 communities and outstations. With the combination of low voter enrolment and low turnout, it seems likely that only around 45 per cent of eligible Aboriginal people voted. These facts are very simple. What will happen as a result if this legislation were to be passed and enacted? We'd see fewer people voting. This is not just a recent phenomenon, but it goes to the whole question of what the government believes should happen in relation to Aboriginal people and the electoral process in remote communities. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this legislation will impact upon a range of people outside of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but it will have a significant impact upon Aboriginal people. It builds upon decisions previously taken by this government that have meant that the opportunity to vote or be enrolled to vote has been made extremely difficult by successive conservative governments in this country. The 2017 budget included a measure to restructure by downsizing and relocating functions from the Australian Electoral Commission's Darwin office to Queensland. They went from 15 staff to three. The decision to restructure was done without any public consultation or discussion or reference to the interests of AEC staff who were being told they were being made redundant. The only reason given in the budget papers in 2017 for the downsizing of this office was to provide savings of $8.3 million to offset expenditure provided to enhance laws around the authorisation of public political communications. We need to understand this is part of a piece. When the Howard government came to power in 1996, one of the first things it did was remove 25 education officers from the AEC, mostly in northern Australia. Sixteen of these officers operated in the north, and their function was to promote voter education and enrolment. We had this happen in 1996 and then we had it happen again in 2007, when the Australian Electoral Commission, because of budget cuts, took away staff who would otherwise be out in the field promoting Aboriginal enrolment and educating people on the voting system and their rights and obligations as Australian citizens. And we wonder why enrolment levels are low. We need to contemplate the population we're talking about here. It's a young population. Using 2016 census figures, as a proportion of the Northern Territory population Aboriginal people made up 30 per cent but comprised 46 per cent of 16- to 19-year-olds—a huge growth of young people moving into voting age and far higher than the rest of the population, given the proportion of the population that Aboriginal people comprise. Instead of trying to enhance the opportunity for these Aboriginal people to be enrolled to vote, we have seen the government pull the rug out from underneath any programs and policies that would have provided them the opportunity to do exactly that. This is just another example. Clearly, the member for Sturt has absolutely no idea—and I suspect many of his colleagues are in the same boat—about the population who are going to be impacted most by this stupid decision. We went and talked to communities where Aboriginal people make up the majority—they live in dispersed populations across, in the case of the Northern Territory, 200 polling places—over a fortnight. We went to 200 polling places over a fortnight. I know this, because I go to them. I know what happens at those polling places. We've got a lot of Aboriginal people who have very little English literacy and speak English as a second, third or fourth language. And they don't have identification. Many don't have a drivers licence or the opportunity to get one. They certainly don't have an Australian passport or a proof-of-age ID card. Many won't have a birth certificate, and, if they did, they wouldn't where to find it or how to get one. Most of them don't have a Commonwealth or state ID card, particularly these young people I'm referring to. They don't have a council rates notice because they don't pay rates. They don't have a telephone bill, and they won't have a utilities bill. They'll live in a house where there might be 20 or 25 people, and they're expected to have identification papers to turn up at a polling booth. What will happen, sadly, is that the impact of this will be that, even if we're able to get significantly higher turnout, we will get people turning up at the polling place, going up to vote and being asked their name and asked for their identification, which they won't be able to provide. Then they'll be told they need to fill out a form to apply for a declaration vote. They'll find that difficult if not impossible in some cases, and they won't be able to fill out the form. They may or may not have people who will identify them as local people who have got identification. But what we know is that this will be a huge deterrent to them turning up to vote—a huge deterrent. So the poor turnouts at the last couple of elections will be exacerbated as a direct result of these measures if they are passed. That's not what we want. What we should be doing is the reverse. We should be saying to people, 'We want to make sure you are educated and understand the voting system, that you are properly enrolled to vote and that, when you turn up to the polling place on voting day, you will get a vote by standing up and saying your name, as it is on the roll, and answering the question, "Have you voted anywhere else but here today?"' That's it, pure and simple. We know what may happen in some cases, because I know what happens at these polling places. There'll be a thuggish scrutineer who will make it extremely difficult for people to be able to exercise their rights. I've observed this over many, many years. What do you do? You upset people. I notice my friend the member for Newcastle is here. She will recall, or at least know of, the Court of Disputed Returns case taken by Ernie Bridge against Alan Ridge in Western Australia. What the Liberals did in Western Australia was to try and deny people a right to vote—Aboriginal people in remote communities in this case. They deliberately tried to deny people the right to vote. They used alcohol as a mechanism, a shameful practice. Whilst this is not that, what it is going to do will have a similar impact. It will mean that people who would otherwise have the right to vote as Australian citizens will not exercise that right, and that, to me, is what this is about. The previous speaker said, 'Well, you know, this is not about winning elections.' Pigs! You've been waiting for 12 elections to see me depart this place, and now you think it's your best chance to win the seat. You think: 'We'll have the best chance of winning the seat if we can minimise the opportunity for Aboriginal people to vote, because we know that when they voted for Snowdon at the last few elections he was getting 70, 80 or even 90 per cent of the vote in some booths. So how do we minimise that opportunity? Well, let's try and get fewer people to vote.' It is a very deliberate strategy. Of course the Prime Minister will stand up here piously saying, 'Of course that's not the case.' Well, we know about him. The Australian population are awake to him. We need to make sure that this legislation does not pass this parliament. This piece of legislation is discriminatory. In my view, the way it impacts on Aboriginal people in my community is racist. It would do entirely the opposite to what the member for Sturt claimed it would do. We as members of parliament have an obligation here to try and encourage people to participate in our democratic processes. If we are going to introduce this piece of legislation and pass it, what we are doing is discouraging them and taking away the opportunity to vote for many people who would otherwise have the right to vote. That can't be good. It's a dreadful thing to do to the Australian community. I hope that members of this parliament, even those on the government benches, see the merits of the argument about opposing this piece of legislation and do not support it. (Time expired)
Northern Australia | Ministerial Statements | House debates
I rise in response to the northern Australia ministerial statement, and I congratulate Minister Littleproud on his appointment and on providing this House with his first update as Minister for...
I rise in response to the northern Australia ministerial statement, and I congratulate Minister Littleproud on his appointment and on providing this House with his first update as Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Over six years on from the introduction of the white paper on developing the north, we are still waiting on the government to deliver on their promises. I note the promises which were made today. When the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government announced their northern Australia agenda in 2015, they claimed their plan would help unleash our nation's potential. That's yet to be realised. The government loves talking about potential, but the reality six years on is that the north can feel dudded, I think, by the piecemeal plans that have been put in place. Time and time again, and contrary to what the government might believe, I hear from communities across the north that they are not seeing the leadership that they want from this government. I have to say it's not surprising, though, when leadership squabbles within the coalition are at the forefront of people's minds. As much as I'm glad to see Minister Littleproud deliver his statement, the elephant in the room, of course, is that the minister only got this job after Keith, his mate, was ousted after only a year in the job during yet another National leadership spill. I sympathise with Keith. We know that the people in the bush and particularly northern Australia are the people who suffer when the Nats decide they'd rather have a go at themselves. We've also seen significant turmoil at the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF, with the shock resignation of CEO Chris Wade. Sadly, the NAIF continues to be a sore thumb for this government, and I note the minister's comments. Labor supports the NAIF, as you well know. There is a real gap, though, in financing projects in the north which the NAIF could fill. There are clear challenges for the new board, but I do want to recognise Tracey Hayes as the chair, someone who I've known for many years and I know well. We were pleased that the government adopted some of Labor's suggestions to improve the NAIF, such as allowing it to make equity investments and increasing support for small and First Nations projects. However, Minister, you've yet to acknowledge you'll include the Indian Ocean Territories as part of NAIF. It beggars belief that you can't see that Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands, north of the Tropic of Capricorn—although, yes, in the Indian Ocean—are part of northern Australia. If you wouldn't mind, I would like you to include them as part of northern Australia for the purpose of NAIF funding. That would be something which would make people on Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands most pleased. However, six years after it was announced, the NAIF has still only released 8.5 per cent, $427.6 million, of its $5 billion budget. At this rate it will take 70 years for all of NAIF's funding to be allocated out. The minister—and I want to thank him—has also touched on some government programs to fund disaster resilience. It's unfortunate he didn't think to mention the $4.7 billion Emergency Response Fund, which was announced over 2½ years ago to fund disaster recovery and resilience. This fund could be building cyclone shelters, evacuation centres and flood levies across the north right now, but 2½ years on it has only begun releasing funding in last month and there are still no shovels on the ground. The week that the Bureau of Meteorology declared a La Nina weather event and natural disaster, communities have been left unprotected yet again. Perhaps the most worrying backward step in the northern Australia agenda is the winding back of some of these key structures. The ministerial forum on northern Australia, comprising responsible ministers from the Commonwealth, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, has, as I understand it, been quietly downgraded to meeting 'as needed' before it will be disbanded later this year. Funding for the Indigenous reference group, which the minister referred to, ceased at the end of last year, but I do note that he's confirmed today that the Indigenous reference group will be re-established. It was concerning that so little consideration was given to the ongoing importance of engaging with First Nations Australians in the first place. It should not have been run down. These types of structures are essential for the collaboration the northern Australia agenda needs to succeed. I commend the minister to make more of the Indigenous reference group and the advice he can get from First Nations people right across this country. He made reference to the amount of land which they have responsibility for and speak on behalf of, and it's very clear that Indigenous people, First Nations people from across the country and across the north of Australia, are very keen to be involved in development projects. It is clear, however, that northern Australia needs a real plan backed by real action. That's why it won't surprise you that that's what Labor's economic plan for northern Australia will do, by creating more jobs in more industries. We want to create more jobs in the north's backbone industries like agriculture, resources and tourism. It's significant, I think, that people from what we would call 'down south' fail to really understand the potential of the north in agriculture, and it's very significant. The amount of agricultural development in the Northern Territory, for example, is far, far greater than that in the Ord, and that's not recognised. I want to commend the activities of all people involved in those industries in the north, including, of course, the pastoral industry. We want to create more jobs, though, in the hidden industries that we often don't recognise—things that are extremely important to the north and indeed to Australia generally, like health care, education and human services. And we want to create more jobs in the newer industries, where our north has a massive competitive advantage, like renewables, particularly solar; hydrogen; advanced manufacturing; aerospace; and creative industries. There are incredible opportunities arising across northern Australia, but we're not going to harness them by offering short-term solutions. I note the minister talked about long-term outcomes. Well, I would share that view with him, but we've got to get acting and we've got to get moving. Labour will start by actually delivering the infrastructure required to grow and connect northern communities. In this year's budget, Queensland received the lowest share of new infrastructure spending per head of anywhere in the country. In the Northern Territory, only one per cent of new infrastructure funds will be spent in the next four years. It's not just about building the roads, bridges and tunnels needed to connect our communities. Labor believes in investing in our social infrastructure as well. Whether it's overcrowding in our remote Aboriginal communities or skyrocketing rents in our northern cities, housing is one of the biggest issues facing the north. The recent COVID outbreak around the Katherine region and down at Robertson River highlights the importance of us addressing the infrastructure shortfall in housing across northern Australia in First Nations communities. That's why Labor is committed to a $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund which, over the first five years, will build 20,000 social housing dwellings and 10,000 affordable housing places for essential workers who are being priced out of the market. Significantly, the fund will also provide $200 million for the repair, maintenance and improvement of housing in remote First Nations communities. There is still more to be done. Labor is also focused on tackling unmet need across our health and aged-care sectors in the north. While addressing this need will be good for the health outcomes of northern Australia, it will also create, as I'm sure you'd appreciate, many jobs. Of course, if we're to deliver this infrastructure or build our traditional hidden and emerging industries, we need to tackle the issue businesses constantly raise with me: skills shortages. And I note the reference that the minister made. That's why an Albanese Labor government will require that one job in 10 on major federal projects will be filled with an apprentice, trainee or cadet. We will establish Jobs and Skills Australia to match the training we provide with the skills gaps of industry, and we will invest $100 million to provide incentives for new-energy apprentices to ensure that we have skilled workers for the growing new-energy sector. We will develop a new employment program, in partnership with First Nations people, to replace the failed and punitive CDP. This is something I've been banging on about for over a decade. We're yet to see anything concrete come out of the government, but we will be changing it if we form government. We'll scrap CDP and introduce a new program which will be a work program in Aboriginal communities. Finally, there is a real need to offer options to ease investment in northern Australia. That's why Labor has announced a National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund that will partner with the private sector to invest in projects that value-add. This will help create the jobs in minerals and food processing, shipbuilding, defence, renewables and medical manufacturing. I note the minister's reference to defence. Of course, it's a significant part of the economy of northern Australia, and much more needs to be done to advance the opportunities for small businesses involved in the defence sector across the north. Labor believes in putting forward a bold agenda for northern Australia that will, above all, create more jobs across more industries. The north, as we all know, is full of potential yet to be realised, and it's time we had a government that will realise it.
Furber, Mr Harold | Constituency Statements | House debates
Harold Furber, an important and respected Aboriginal leader, passed away peacefully, surrounded by his family, on the afternoon of Friday 5 November in the palliative care unit at the Alice...
Harold Furber, an important and respected Aboriginal leader, passed away peacefully, surrounded by his family, on the afternoon of Friday 5 November in the palliative care unit at the Alice Springs Hospital. He had been in the intensive care unit all week following complications stemming from long-term problems with his heart. Harold's funeral service was held in Alice Springs last Friday. Harold was the son of Emily Furber, who's deceased; father to Melanie Marron, Patricia Marron and Declan Further Gillick; and brother to Margaret Furber, Trish Kiessler and Toni Arundel. Harold's numerous family and kinship connections, of which he was most proud, stretched far and wide throughout Alice Springs and across Central Australia, the Northern Territory and beyond. He was considered an uncle, grandfather and father to many. He was widely known and respected as a deeply principled community organiser and intercultural leader. He was a proud Arrente man and a member of the stolen generations who determinedly found his way back to his family and homelands in Central Australia and committed the better part of his life to the pursuit of justice, collaboration, truth-telling and the self-determined social, economic and political development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at grassroots, local, state, national and global levels. His contributions to community organisations were numerous and widespread. He worked for many years to establish and/or contribute to the development of organisations such as the Central Land Council where I worked with Harold many years ago and where he was for a time their deputy director; Central Australian Aboriginal congress; Yipirinya School; Northern Territory Stolen Generations Corporation; and the Australian Labor Party where he was twice a candidate for the Centralian seat in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly—in 1990 in the division of Sadadeen as it was then named; and in 2001 in the division of MacDonnell, now known as Namatjira. Harold also travelled internationally to learn from and work with First Nations representatives and community leaders, including in Canada, the Philippines, the United States and Aotearoa. His final passion and greatest pride was his determination and tenacious leadership in the establishment of the Desert Knowledge Precinct, an intercultural knowledge-sharing initiative south of Heavitree Gap in Alice Springs. Harold held the position of Intercultural Elder-in-Residence of the precinct and he continued to work there to provide advice to the consultancy right up until his passing. He was a well-known Aussie rules footballer, representing Pioneers, North Adelaide, Buffaloes football club in Darwin. He played in several premiership seasons and was a very good sportsman. Stolen from his family and homelands as a small boy in 1957, Harold found his way back to his own country and remained there as a tireless fighter for his people and contributed to the many causes and organisations in Darwin and Central Australia. Taken too soon, he will be deeply missed. Harold's legacy lives in the memory and in the hearts and minds of family and friends. May he rest in peace.
Electoral Roll | Questions without Notice | House debates
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his attempt to suppress voting rights in Australia. Has the Prime Minister no understanding of the impact this move will have on remote...
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his attempt to suppress voting rights in Australia. Has the Prime Minister no understanding of the impact this move will have on remote communities across this country or does he know exactly how it will suppress the vote and this is precisely why he's doing it?
Electoral Roll | Motions | House debates
This is a shameful attempt to undermine the democratic rights of Australians to vote. It's a shameful, gutless attempt—
I second the amendment. Let's be very, very clear about this. This is just an exercise in voter suppression—nothing more, nothing less. It's designed to deny Australians the legitimate...
I second the amendment. Let's be very, very clear about this. This is just an exercise in voter suppression—nothing more, nothing less. It's designed to deny Australians the legitimate right to vote in our democracy. It's part of a piece. I have railed in this chamber on a number of occasions against the way in which this government has dealt with people who are trying to enrol to vote—where they were attempting to deny people the right to enrol, let alone get a vote. And what we are seeing now is a second part of that piece: 'We've denied the right to vote by not having you enrolled, and now what we want to do is make sure that, when you turn up to the voting place, you don't get to exercise your right to vote in our democracy.' That's what this is about. I'm sick to the back teeth. I've been here 33 bloody years and I've never seen anything like this. It's racist, it's discriminatory and it's all about suppression. Don't shake your head, because that's what it's about. You have no idea. I know what will happen in my electorate. People from remote communities will turn up to the polling booth to vote, if they're lucky enough to be on the roll, and be asked, 'Do you have a piece of identification?' 'No.' 'Does the person next to you have a piece of identification?' 'No.' 'Well, they can't verify your identification because they don't have their own.' This is a farce, an absolute assault on our democracy.
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021, Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Hasluck and the member for Barton for their contributions to this debate. I recognise the unique perspectives they bring as Aboriginal people and as people...
Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Hasluck and the member for Barton for their contributions to this debate. I recognise the unique perspectives they bring as Aboriginal people and as people who have been impacted by the stolen generations themselves. My first real interaction with members of the stolen generation was four decades ago. I recall attending a conference, in 1992, at Kormilda College in Darwin of stolen generations members. These were people who wanted justice, and they wanted an understanding of their plight and their suffering and their hurt. Then we saw the then Labor government institute the 'bringing them home' inquiry and we saw its report to the parliament in 1997, where it made 54 recommendations. A key recommendation was reparations. It wanted an acknowledgement and an apology from the parliament, which, of course, took 10 years to come about; guarantees against repetition; restitution and rehabilitation; and monetary compensation. Sadly, though, the then Prime Minister, John Howard—as the member for Barton pointed out in her contribution—steadfastly refused an apology or to recognise the importance of restitution. That was sad then and, on reflection, it's sadder now, because that was an opportunity not to deal with this issue once and for all but certainly to address the needs which were identified by the Bringing them home report and which have taken so long to properly address. It's not my intention to go through the details of the legislation; others have properly done that. I do want to talk, though, about the stolen generations. The removal of children from their families was an almost century-long practice by governments across Australia, and we know it created trauma that has transcended generations and instigated intergenerational trauma. The separation of families and the destruction of communities on a systematic scale can't simply be forgotten. The fear and pain remain, not only with members of the stolen generations but with their children, their grandchildren and their extended families. There is no amount of money, despite the importance of this legislation, that will undo that or could adequately compensate individuals, families and communities for that hurt, for that damage and for the long shadow the trauma has cast on relationships, on health, including mental health, on people's economic prospects, and on culture, language and identity. For so many people today, the horror and trauma of systematic child removal policies goes a long way, as the member for Barton said, to explain the mistrust of authority—such as schools, policies of governments, health care and hospitals. As the member for Barton pointed out, she was up there in the gallery on that wonderful day, 13 February 2008, when Prime Minister Kevin Rudd extended the Apology to the Stolen Generations and the then Leader of the Opposition responded in like terms. That was an important shift, because up until then the then opposition had refused to contemplate an apology to the stolen generations, and Brendan Nelson is to be congratulated for his leadership on that day. It was a very important thing to happen. It brought this parliament together—except, I note, that there are a number of people still in this parliament who absented themselves from the apology, and that was shameful. I now want to speak about my many friends who are members of the stolen generations, some of whom have died in recent years and so have missed the opportunity for the recognition that this bill will provide. My dear friend the preselected Labor candidate for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, who I hope will replace me in this parliament, is a daughter of a stolen generations survivor. Marion recently shared this story on her Facebook page after visiting Ti Tree just north of Alice Springs, the area from which her father came but was taken from so long ago. Marion's father, Jack, was taken from his Aboriginal mother and non-Aboriginal father at Ti Tree and sent to Croker Island off the coast of northern Australia. During the Second World War, he took part in the so-called long walk home to avoid Japanese bombing. Jack, along with many other children and three teachers, initially walked hundreds of kilometres from a point on the mainland near Croker Island to Gunbalanya, and it was the beginning of a trip that took him all the way to the south-east corner of Australia. Marion had the opportunities to sit with his family that he never had. When talking about these tragic events, I am reminded of Archie Roach. When Archie sang his most famous song, Took the Children Away, at the bicentennial in 1988, two elderly people from the Northern Territory came up to him afterwards. 'What did you write that song about?' the old man asked. 'Me,' said Roach, who was taken as a child, sadly, from his parents. The old man said, 'No, you wrote it for me.' A former long-term member of my staff, Jack Crosby, who sadly passed away a few years ago now, was married to Sue Roman, a very dear friend. Sue's mother, Lindy Roman, was taken away to the Kahlin Compound in Darwin Sue, her daughter, was put in the infamous Retta Dixon Home. Sue's mother was forced to work as a domestic for families in Darwin. Sue's mum, Lindy, was judged unfit to look after her own kids but was considered fit to look after the children of non-Aboriginal people. Sue was the youngest child in a family of five children. She was removed when she was baby. She is now 72. Sue remained under the control of the Aborigines Inland Mission, which controlled Retta Dixon Home, until she was 18. Sue had one brother. He was sent to an institution in Alice Springs, 1,400km away. There were hundreds of kids in Retta Dixon over the time Sue was there, and she was one of the few or only children who was of Larrakia descent. Her mother was therefore in Darwin. Sue was sometimes, and illegally, able to talk to her mum over the side fence of Retta Dixon, where it shared a boundary with the Bagot community, At 12, Sue was sent to school in Victoria, into the care of foster parents who turned out, sadly, to be abusive. While with those people, her mother wrote letters to her that were never given to her. They had been sent sometimes with a10 bob note. She never saw the money. Sue's mother was not even told she was sent to Victoria. Sue's version of the impact is simple and powerful. In her words: 'They eff your life.' 'Fortunately', she says, 'I got to learn the truth.' A friendly school teacher she had as a teenager worked with her to go through what had happened. In the process, she says, 'I made a commitment not to be poor bugger me.' She says, 'At 15 I had a couple of years of truth telling.' The school teachers were Brett and Pat Wren. They were school teachers she met in Victoria, and they became her foster parents for 2½ years. When Sue was 17 she came back to Darwin. She then went on to work with other survivors to lead a claim for compensation for what had happened to them at Retta Dixon. Estelle Ross is a stolen generations survivor. She is an Eastern Arrernte woman. Her daughter is Christine Ross. Christine's mum is 83 in January. Recently, Christine told me of Estelle's story, which Estelle is happy to share. In 1946, as a young child, she was taken from her home at Arltunga. Six were taken at the same time. They were also sent to Garden Point off the north coast of the Territory. The six children were put on the back of a ute. They were told they were going shopping. They never came back. Estelle was sent to Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, which was run by the Catholic Church. Their mothers were not told anything about what happened to them. Estelle only left Garden Point when she was 15 when she was sent to boarding school in Adelaide. She stayed there for three years, then she was released. Estelle only met her mother again many years later, when she was an adult. At Garden Point, Estelle grew up without her family at all. Initially she couldn't speak English. She was completely denied any access to her own language and culture. When she met her mother many years later it was very difficult for her to communicate, because Estelle's mother had very little English. Estelle suffered emotional abuse and mental abuse. She says she was raised by nuns who were not compassionate; in the process, she was constantly abused for minor things. She formed a strong bond with other survivors of Garden Point and she stayed in touch with them all her life. One of the people she was there with was Jack Scrymgour, Marion's dad. Christine reminded us that what happened to her mother led to intergenerational trauma. For Christine, hearing her mother's story was a huge upset. Estelle says that talking about this is not for the sake of compensation; it's important to make all this part of Australian history. She says it's a story that has to be told. In the words of Christine, 'Stealing children has screwed up so many kids and led to a lot of suicide.' Christine notes there is only so much you can take of living with trauma. For her, the impact has been huge and ongoing. Christine also said it has taken too long for the survivors to get compensation. This is very important legislation, and it's very important we have bipartisan support for it. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Barton and, indeed, the member for Hasluck in making sure we see this legislation in the parliament today. But let there be no doubt: this is a story of national shame and disgrace. It's a part of our history that we need to constantly acknowledge and address. This compensation process is one part of it. Those stories, like the ones I've just told you, are stories we all need to hear, lest we become relaxed and comfortable in the knowledge we've done something. We're doing something, but we're never going to change intergenerational trauma or the loss, sadness or disgrace that was brought about as a result of this process of stealing children away from their families. We have an obligation in this place. As members of parliament we are acutely charged with a great responsibility to look after the interests of the Australian community. This legislation does that in part, but it is just so sad that so many have died and will not see the justice that will be brought about as a result of this minor, minor piece of legislation for compensation. I commend the bills to the House.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I say to the member for O'Connor, who just...
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I say to the member for O'Connor, who just spoke: I've met Mac Jensen at Wiluna, and you're right. He's a person with a great deal of drive and commitment, and he does an outstanding job. He is someone who has done his bit, if I might put it that way. I won't make any other observations about the member for O'Connor's speech. I just want to talk about this bill. It would have been helpful if the member for O'Connor had done that. This bill, in my view, is an absolute acknowledgement of the failure of the government's Community Development Program. What an absolute disaster it was when the old CDEP scheme, the Community Development Employment Program, was abolished by the Howard government. The stupidity of the abolition of the CDEP scheme was acknowledged by subsequent Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he said, 'Abolishing CDEP was a well-intentioned mistake, and CDP is our attempt to atone for it.' What a miserable observation, frankly. The CDEP scheme should never have been abolished. I might say that I'm somewhat ashamed that the former Labor government, subsequent to the Howard government, continued with the process to abolish the CDEP scheme by putting a sunset clause in place. I opposed that. I worked on a report on the initial CDEP scheme in 1979 and 1980 in the Pitjantjatjara homelands area of the north-west of South Australia and into the Ngaanyatjarra of Western Australia. I saw an observation only a day or so ago by people saying that getting rid of the CDP is in part to stop people getting sit-down money. Let me make it very clear. CDP is a welfare program. CDEP was a work program. It's worth contemplating that CDEP was part-time work for part-time pay at award-equivalent wages. There were deficiencies—superannuation wasn't paid and sick leave and long service leave weren't given. They were absolute deficiencies of the program. It's worth reflecting on how the CDEP started. The program started in the early 1970s. The process commenced in the early 1970s when Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory said to the government: 'We're sick of getting unemployment benefits. We don't want sit-down money. We want to have our communities work for the money they're receiving.' The first communities involved in this were Barunga, then Beswick outside of Katherine, and then Kalkarindji, or what is now known as Wave Hill walk-off country. What happened was that the government, under an enlightened social security minister at the time, Margaret Guilfoyle, a Liberal minister, agreed that what they would do was accept paying the unemployment equivalent for the community that they were addressing. The sum of that money was paid to the community for distribution by the community, which distributed the money in a way that met their priorities and made sure people did something in return for that income. That evolved into the Community Development Employment Program which, as I said, was part-time work for part-time pay at award rates. That happened as the result of an initiative by Aboriginal people; it didn't come from government. And to hear people in this place disparage the intent of Aboriginal people across this country to seek employment options and to imply that somehow or another they don't want to work because of the failure of CDP is an absolute insult. What we know—and this is apparent, as I've experienced it over many years now—is that there aren't sufficient jobs for all working-age people in remote communities. I'm sure the member for O'Connor understands that. Each of these communities has their own discrete small-area labour markets, which are not really understood at the macro level. Where the population is rising relatively quickly in comparison with the rest of the Australian population, large numbers of young people are left looking for an opportunity. They don't want to leave their home communities, but if they're lucky enough to have an education they might be attracted to go off and do further training. But what they need is labour market intervention; what they need is an investment in a program that will create work opportunities which are defined by the communities themselves. That's what CDEP used to be; it was controlled and managed locally, by local organisations. They determined the nature of work to be undertaken and the people who were to do that work, and those people were paid award wage equivalents. If someone didn't go to work then they didn't get paid. This was a very popular program because it also allowed wage top-ups; if people undertook jobs and worked for their 15 hours and there was still work available in that workplace, they could get that work and be paid a wage top-up for doing that work, and at the award wage equivalent. It was a very successful program. It wasn't perfect, by any stretch, and in some places the administration left something to be desired. But what we need to understand is that we need to give people back that responsibility. CDP took that responsibility away, breached people needlessly and caused people to suffer. It was a welfare program and it is a welfare program. What we're after now—and communities have argued for this for a long time—is for them to have control. They expect to do the work, but they need to be paid proper award rates and they need to have their income guaranteed. They understand the penalties of not going to work. They need to be paid superannuation and they need to be given entitlements. That's something which can be done, and I'm sure that the economic benefit of doing that sort of investment would far outweigh the costs in the long-term of not proceeding with such a proposal. A new job-creating Community Development Program should at least have the following objectives: decision-making powers should be devolved to local communities and local community organisations; the objective, of course, should be to provide work opportunities and training opportunities where they're relevant; and to alleviate the issues of lack of access to jobs, low-income-support payments, remoteness and small community size, and the current welfare conditionality that imposes income penalties and barriers in gaining access to appropriate payments. It's worth noting that the August report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, Report on Indigenous participation in employment and business, contemplated the failure of CDP and made the following recommendations: The committee recommends that in engaging in the process of codesign, the Australian Government should consider incorporating the following elements into the redesign of the Community Development Program: These are entirely sensible recommendations, not reflected in the government's CDP or its reform. Whilst the government talk about co-design, what we do know is that they've chosen five sites, we're told, for a total of 200 people in this trial, over two years—bizarre. How is that going to alleviate or change things? It ain't. What they need is action now, and there should be a co-design process which talks to the people in this country who have been working in this space for many years. Aboriginal organisations and their peak organisations, their representative bodies, need to be involved and consulted, and they have not been. Why not? Is it the arrogance of this government? We need to do this, and we need to do it now. Labor is committed to getting rid of CDP and replacing it with a real jobs creation and economic program for remote Australia, developed in partnership with local communities and organisations as I've described. I might just go back a moment. My observation and experience of the old CDEP program was that it generated its own economy, it created real opportunities and it provided the capacity for additional staffing to go into places like schools and health services. Sadly, when the CDEP was abolished, the positions that they were undertaking in those schools as additional staffing, not within formula, were taken away. Their jobs were gone. So not only did those jobs go but it meant that the schools lost the important contribution that was being made by language speakers, parents, in those school communities. That is directly what happened. Of course, we had people say, 'But these are jobs that should have been paid for by government.' They weren't within the formula. They weren't part of the staffing profile of the school. They were additional, as they were in some local government areas, doing what might have been additional local government jobs. Somehow or other, what we've done is say, 'Well, they're jobs that should be paid for by local government, by Education or by Health, and therefore what we'll do is abolish CDEP, because they're not real jobs.' What an absurdity! At the same time, we know that they were generating business opportunities. I know of a number of communities where large CDEP organisations ran small businesses such as shops and the like. Labor will end the CDP and put in place a remote employment program to create jobs and economic growth in remote areas. I say to the government: it's not too late to change, but you need to do it now. Aboriginal people want this in remote parts of this country, including in the member for O'Connor's communities.
COVID-19: Northern Territory | Adjournment | House debates
I rise to again highlight the imperative and urgency for the people in the Northern Territory to get vaccinated against COVID. It's acutely important for people living in remote communities,...
I rise to again highlight the imperative and urgency for the people in the Northern Territory to get vaccinated against COVID. It's acutely important for people living in remote communities, where the general health of the population may make them particularly vulnerable and susceptible to COVID. Currently, there are no cases of COVID in the Northern Territory, and there have been no deaths to date. But, sadly, it is inevitable that COVID will penetrate the Territory's borders with the implementation of the national plan—much vaunted by the Prime Minister and others—and there will be subsequent pressure on the Northern Territory government to facilitate travel from parts of Australia where COVID is now endemic. The NT government has done a great job in protecting the Territory from COVID thus far. As a result, apart from short lockdowns, the Territory population has had freedom that only existed in New South Wales and Victoria prior to COVID beginning in the first place. We have been dreadfully lucky. There has been great cooperation between the Northern Territory government, remote communities, the Aboriginal community controlled health services and the private Medicare organisations to try and promote COVID vaccinations across the Territory. At the moment the Northern Territory's overall vaccination rate is 81 per cent for the first dose and 70 per cent for the second dose. In the Northern Territory government clinics, it's 69 per cent first dose and 56 per cent second dose. However, there are some areas where the take-up is very poor. There are pockets of resistance. People are opposed to getting vaccinated, and it's not just about vaccine hesitancy. They've been told lies, and they believe the lies that have been peddled by those with extreme views, including faith based groups talking of the devil and saying that you're going to inject yourself with 5G or that you will die. These lies are a threat to the health of the whole community. They are wrong and they are malicious in their intent. However, there are some really positive stories. In Central Australia, for example, at the NT government clinic at Mount Liebig, or Amunturrngu, 95 per cent of people have had their first dose, which is a terrific result, and 74 per cent have had their second dose. At Utju, or Areyonga, 95 per cent have had their first dose, and 74 per cent have had their second dose. This is at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress clinic, and these outcomes are because of local leadership at Utju. One major reason for the community success was the push by Sarah Gallagher, a long-term health worker in the community, encouraging residents to get the jab. Health workers who service the community have also credited strong male leadership in the community for the uptake success. Jonathan Dooley, who has lived at Utju for 20 years, said the community had felt the fear and uncertainty around COVID. Mr Dooley is quoted as saying: Some are getting scared of this thing and some really aren't sure what they need to do. We're giving them the message and people will come to have the needle, have the thing. The combined efforts of Ms Gallagher's commitment to her community and Mr Dooley's leadership have led to success, but the formula has proven difficult to replicate in other communities struggling to promote the vaccinations. The experience of Utju is that vaccine hesitancy can be addressed if community leaders act as the key agents working with health professionals to get across the message of the need to vaccinate. The vast majority of remote Northern Territory government clinics have a permanent supply of vaccine. All remote Territorians can access the Pfizer vaccine. The vaccine is safe, free and incredibly effective at stopping the spread of the virus and preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death. It is, as we know, everyone's best protection from COVID-19. I say to those people who are spreading those malicious lies about COVID and who are promoting antivaxxers that they are potentially doing incredible harm to a very susceptible part of our community. COVID will inevitably come into the Territory, and there will be deaths. I would ask what those people will say if those deaths are among people who are not vaccinated, because they've accepted the antivax message.
Climate Change | Grievance Debate | House debates
You look as if you own that position, Deputy Speaker Freelander! Onto serious matters—not that you're not serious. Here we are, two weeks away from Glasgow, a great and very important...
You look as if you own that position, Deputy Speaker Freelander! Onto serious matters—not that you're not serious. Here we are, two weeks away from Glasgow, a great and very important climate change conference, and we're in disarray about whether or not we've got an emissions target of zero by 2050. This is largely due to disarray within the coalition, and mostly because of the pig-headedness of some in the National Party. As a party to the Paris Agreement, we're meant to be going to Glasgow with concrete improvements to our emissions reduction schedule. I've not heard one word from the government about what that might look like. Indeed, we should be going to talk about our 2030 pledge of 26 to 28 per cent, which we'll meet walking in our sleep. Instead of reviewing that and giving us a greater pledge for 2030, we're hearing nothing from the government in that regard. We'll get to hear about a target of 2050, I am imagining. We'll have some people from the National Party continuing to bleat about regional Australia when in fact there are many in regional Australia who want this debate over and done with. They understand its implications. Every state and territory, most of our major businesses, the National Farmers Federation, the Business Council of Australia, the Minerals Council, APPEA—all of these groups are now committed to zero emissions by 2050. They want a way forward and they understand the importance to their industries of climate change and doing something effective. We all know that net zero is not just an environmental imperative but an investment framework to guide decisions by business and policy from governments. As I said, every state and territory has an emissions target of zero by 2050. This government can't bring itself to show the leadership that's required to show us what that pathway might look like. It's not surprising in that context that the world is wondering what we're up to. For the world, the next decade will determine whether warming can be kept to 1.5 or 2 degrees. It's imperative that we show some leadership in this debate and not be just a follower. For Australia, the next decade will determine whether we become a renewable energy superpower or lose the global race that is already underway. We hear a lot about regional Australia from the National Party. I haven't heard them spruik the importance of using our solar resources as an export commodity. But in the Northern Territory there is an ambitious project taking shape to supply solar sourced electricity into the Singapore market, which is currently dependent on gas fired power. Sun Cable's vision is to build the world's first intercontinental power grid connecting Australia to Singapore to supply 24/7 renewable power. Sun Cable is a private Australian solar energy infrastructure developer, and we know that Australia has the highest per capita solar resource in the G20 and the second highest in the world. There is unique opportunity to export large volumes of renewable energy, supporting regional energy needs and sustaining economic growth. There's no reason why we shouldn't be making sure that we are exporting this power into South-East Asia. This is exactly what Sun Cable is doing. The Australia-Asia PowerLink is expected to channel renewable electricity to a solar battery in Darwin, the world's largest solar battery, before travelling by submarine cable 3,750 kilometres to Singapore. If the project goes to plan—and there is no reason why it shouldn't—it will provide Singapore with up to 15 per cent of its electricity needs from 2028. Sun Cable's $30 billion Australia-Asia PowerLink project includes a 17- to 20-gigawatt solar farm and a battery on a remote pastoral station about 70 kilometres south-east of Elliott, at Powell Creek. Elliott, as you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, is a township around 250 kilometres north of Tennant Creek and 636 kilometres south of Darwin, and to the west, I might say, of the Beetaloo Basin, which is, of course, a major gas resource. The solar farm will be enormous, covering 12,000 hectares—imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker—or 125 square kilometres. The electricity generated at the storage facility will be transmitted overhead to Darwin and then via the undersea cable from Darwin Harbour to Singapore. These projects don't happen overnight, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, but slowly the boxes are being ticked, with the prospect that this project will start construction in late 2023, with electricity commissioned for Darwin by 2026, and transmission to Darwin by 2026 and Singapore in 2027. To say this will be a boon to northern Australia is putting it lightly. To say that it will be a boon to the Northern Territory economy is putting it lightly—a regional economy. Whilst the National Party are contemplating their navels, the world is getting on with business. Sun Cable has now announced that it has received crucial approval from the Indonesian government to allow an undersea cable to run through its territorial waters to Singapore. This is a major change. The storage system, as I said, described as the world's largest battery, has the goal of storing between 36 and 42 gigawatt hours. It's estimated the project will inject $8 billion into the Australian economy, with most of it being spent in the Northern Territory, a regional part of Australia. Sun Cable have lodged a development application with the Development Consent Authority in the Northern Territory. The development proposal is also for a manufacturing facility that will pilot a semiautomated production line manufacturing MAVERICK solar array systems in Darwin. So not only are we getting this huge solar farm in the centre of the Northern Territory; there will be a manufacturing base in Darwin providing direct and indirect jobs to many hundreds of people. You would have thought that this would be seen as something that's quite important, but there's been not a word, not a whimper, from the National Party about this very, very important regional development project which will support our target of zero emissions and do a great deal to demonstrate to the world how solar energy can be exported from Australia into our near neighbours. You don't have to be Einstein to work it out, but it seems you can't be in the National Party to do it. I don't know why that is, but you would have thought commonsense would prevail and they would see the merit in looking forward, not backwards, and understanding that we can have developments like this, which have a major advantage for the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia—and, indeed, the world. The project is expected to deliver a total carbon emissions abatement estimated at 8.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year. That's enormous. We should be celebrating. Instead of talking about old technologies, we should talking about new technologies. We should be parading our ability to get to the emissions target of zero emissions by 2050 and do something a lot better by 2030.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | House debates
It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021. I should not so much...
It gives me great pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021. I should not so much express a conflict but make a declaration. Prior to entering this federal parliament my job was as a policy adviser to the Central Land Council. I just want to make that declaration. I will also dob in my colleague the shadow Attorney-General, because he was a lawyer—and I'm not sure if he has improved—with the Northern Land Council in Darwin. He's acquired additional information over that time. I think it's worth at the outset reflecting on some comments in the Bills Digest. It refers to page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which states: Amendments to the Land Rights Act are not common. Aboriginal stakeholders in the NT have strong voices through their Land Councils (the NLC, CLC, ALC and TLC)— the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council, the Anindilyakwa Land Council and the Tiwi Land Council— and the Commonwealth has committed to only amend the Land Rights Act with their support. That's only a reasonably new development, because this act, as the Bills Digest reminds us, has been amended many times—often just to add land claims, which may require parliamentary action—with the widespread support of the land councils and traditional owners and frequently it has been amended—for more fundamental amendments—against the wishes of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. The Bills Digest says that on many occasions it has been amended in ways in which the land councils have not supported t indicates, in an accurate depiction of these amendments, that key features of the bill are best understood as rollbacks of or compromises over past amendments, to which the land councils objected over time. The previous speaker outlined the detail of the act in relation to the development of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Investment Corporation, an Aboriginal controlled corporate-Commonwealth entity funded from the existing Aboriginals Benefit Account, which, as we heard, has $1.3 billion at its disposal. Since the establishment of the Land Rights Act, monies out of the act, under section 54.4, were paid to the Aboriginals Benefit Account for distribution. An Aboriginals Benefit Account advisory committee was set up under the act, under section 65. Its job was to set priorities for and make recommendations on how the monies should be expended. The final decision was in the hands of the minister, who could choose to accept or otherwise the recommendations from that advisory committee. Sadly, over a period of time, ministers got to use this fund as a discretionary fund, where they determined its use without necessarily seeking the advice or getting the approval of the Aboriginals Benefit Account Advisory Committee. We had the outstanding example of Minister Brough, when he was the minister responsible, taking money out of the Aboriginals Benefit Account, which is for the benefit of Aboriginal people whose lands have been exploited in the Northern Territory and who are affected by it as well as for the benefit of the broader Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory. He made a grant to a festival in Queensland, which was totally discretionary and outside the bounds of what the legislation would have otherwise provided. Successive ministers since have made allocations of monies out of this account without a recommendation from the Aboriginals Benefit Account Advisory Committee—purely at the discretion and the decision-making of the respective minister. So this reform is an important one. It will set up a corporation, which will have a board that is largely independent of government, with representatives of the Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory. There will be two from each, which, I might say, is very kind on behalf of the CLC and the NLC, which have large areas and large population bases and which could argue—I would have thought—for additional members. Nevertheless, they've—graciously, in my view—come to a decision to provide a board which has two members from each of the land councils, two government appointed directors and two independent directors appointed by the board. This corporation will also, as the previous speaker said, take over the responsibility for making beneficial payments to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, which are currently made out of the Aboriginals Benefit Account. The importance of this change cannot be underestimated. There can be criticism, absolutely, of some of the detail, but it is very clear that this is a major step forward. To give direct control of these substantial funds—$680 million over the next three years—to an entity which is controlled by traditional owners, through their representatives on the board of this corporation, in the Northern Territory is a remarkable change. I think it's important to acknowledge that this change hasn't been taken lightly or without the necessary level of consultation. The Land Rights Act is a very prescriptive piece of legislation, as I'm sure the shadow Attorney-General will attest. Section 23 of the act prescribes the functions of the land councils and their roles and responsibilities to consult extensively with and to reflect the wishes of traditional owners and, indeed, other Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It's within that context that, when you contemplate the roles of the land councils under section 23, you need to look at how they're constructed, how their consultation processes proceed and how they work through their delegates at a local community level to provide information and to get feedback. They regularly hold meetings in remote places so they can bring together traditional owners to discuss things like these proposed changes. I'm confident, because of my knowledge over many years of how the land councils operate, that they would have taken great care in making sure that job was done properly. Now, the bill will also make other changes to processes around negotiation of the mining provisions in part 4 of the act. These amendments flow from recommendations by Justice Muirhead in the review of part 4 of the act in 2013, as pointed out by the previous speaker. It will, as the previous speaker said, make changes to section 28(a) of the act, about access to Aboriginal land. It will repeal unused powers of the delegation of land council functions to corporations. We opposed this when it was introduced by the Howard government and we're pleased to see it go. The bill will also repeal section 74AA of the Land Rights Act, which was part of the Howard government's Northern Territory intervention and which has the effect of preventing land councils from overturning permits for accessing Aboriginal land that had been granted by a minority in the community but against the wishes of the traditional owners. That's gone. That goes to the comments made in the bills digest about this remedying and winding back decisions which were taken against the interests, desires and wishes of Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. This legislation is very important. Whilst it makes a great change in terms of this new corporate entity, it doesn't release the land councils from their obligations, and they are extremely conscious of and wise to this. Now, there will be people who will argue that these amendments are not appropriate, but to them I just say I've watched the Land Rights Act in operation, I've seen the way in which various governments have introduced amendments to override the rights and interests of traditional owners in the Northern Territory. This bill does the opposite. For that, I want to commend—not that I'd normally do this—the minister for undertaking, through his agency, NIAA, an extensive process of consultation and negotiation with the land councils, providing them with the capacity to go back to their membership to seek the instructions that are properly required for them to agree to this proposal. But changes are important. I can well recall—and I'm sure the shadow minister will recall—the ill-fated Reeves review, a review of the land rights act by John Reeves, a former member of this parliament and now a judge in the Federal Court. He undertook a review of the land rights act and made a series of recommendations which would have radically changed the act. The Howard government put forward proposals which never saw the light of day because of the opposition of Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory. That was a significant victory, and it was done against the backdrop of a government wanting to overturn and limit the rights and interests of Aboriginal people under the act. We're now in a situation where it could be argued that the opposite has occurred—that the rights and interests of Aboriginal people are being enhanced by these amendments. Whilst they are not perfect, and they may need reviewing over time, they do provide an opportunity for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory to make a dramatic change in the way moneys are allocated out of the ABA. That, to me, is a very significant change. I applaud the land councils for their work. I was involved in a couple of joint meetings of the land council executives where they discussed these recommendations over a period of months this year. I was delighted about the way in which they'd come together in unity around these proposals and had undertaken very clearly, with their eyes wide open, a negotiation with the federal government which has achieved a successful outcome and that is reflected in this legislation.
by leave—I firstly acknowledge the traditional owners of this country and the country of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right around this country, their elders past and...
by leave—I firstly acknowledge the traditional owners of this country and the country of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right around this country, their elders past and present and those who are emerging. I want to thank and acknowledge the member for Leichhardt for his contribution, which was well thought through, and for his role in leading this committee inquiry. I'll make further comments about that towards the end of my contribution. I want to speak to this report, A way forward, the final report on the destruction of the Juukan caves by Rio Tinto. As the member for Leichhardt said, the committee also published an interim report, Never again, which made a number of significant recommendations and addressed the immediate anger and concern about the destruction of the caves and the processes leading up to it. The destruction of these 46,000-plus-year-old caves underlines the ongoing impact of dispossession and alienation of Aboriginal people across this country, legitimised and enacted by legislatures across state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions since Federation. As a result, Aboriginal land was seen as fair game by miners, pastoralists and the like, whose actions in exploiting the traditional lands of the First Australians, including the destruction of sites, were legitimised and encouraged. It wasn't until the seventies, with the Woodward royal commission and the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, that the rights and interests of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory—but nowhere else—were given part-recognition and limited protection. At a national level, it wasn't until the passage of the Native Title Act in 1993, following the victory of Eddie Mabo in the High Court—which consigned the notion of terra nullius to the dustbin of history, where it should have been in the first place—that the nation was compelled to at last deal with and address the rights and interests of people who claim native title over land and waters. The destruction of the Juukan Gorge epitomised the arrogance of developers to operate with impunity and ignore the legitimate rights and interests of native title holders, the traditional owners of the lands whose sacred sites were being destroyed. The final report of the committee charts a way forward that acknowledges the pre-eminent rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners of the lands and seas. The report underscores the need for legislative reform, as the member for Leichhardt said, to give real voice and meaning to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, most especially the concepts of free, prior and informed consent and, in particular, the right to withhold consent—to say no—to the destruction of their heritage and, most particularly, places of significance. This report addresses the need to recognise both tangible and intangible heritage. But, of course, the report, as you would expect, pays particular attention to the failures by Rio Tinto in its wanton destruction of Juukan Gorge as well as the failures and inadequacies of the Western Australian heritage laws to protect Aboriginal heritage in that state. What the committee uncovered was the historical abuse of power by the mining industry in Western Australia, enabled by Western Australian law, to effectively corral, ignore and override the rights and interests of traditional owners, to use every legal trick to do this and to do so without recrimination or penalties or the need to properly compensate Aboriginal people in Western Australia for the exploitation of their traditional lands and the destruction of their heritage. It's startling that, despite the destruction of Juukan Gorge, Rio Tinto had no penalties applied and that those with ultimate responsibility left the company with golden handshakes. Despite this, though—and as the member for Leichhardt commented—the committee saw evidence and took evidence from Rio Tinto to the effect that that company has embarked on a very important process of real reform in the way it deals with, recognises, prioritises and addresses the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Other companies, notably BHP, have also introduced new policies and procedures and taken significant action in reforming the way they treat and contract with Aboriginal peoples. Of particular note is the express recognition of the rights of traditional owners and native title holders in the negotiation process over developments on their land. However, there is still a long way to go for the mining industry. The committee also saw the gross inadequacy of legislative protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage across jurisdictions and at a national level. In the case of Juukan Gorge, Commonwealth legislation and ministerial and administrative inaction failed to protect this heritage site from destruction. The committee's report goes into some detail and explores this failure and its implications. There is now clear and unequivocal evidence that the way forward requires the responsibility of heritage protection in the case of First Nations people to be the responsibility of the minister responsible for First Nations. It most certainly should not remain the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. In addition, there is a need for new overarching Commonwealth legislation to protect our First Peoples' cultural heritage, with minimum standards that state and territory jurisdictions will be required to meet. Of course, this legislation will need to be developed in concert with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This committee's report explores and reports on the deficiencies of relevant state and territory legislation. Most particularly, of course, it exposes the flaws in the existing Western Australian legislation, which provided the framework and capacity for the destruction of heritage sites in Western Australia through the use of section 18 determinations and ministerial discretion. It is noteworthy, however, that Western Australia is currently in the process of drafting new legislation that we hope will address the deficiencies identified by this committee in its deliberations. The committee's report exposes the use of gag clauses which have denied Aboriginal people from access to legislation such as, at a federal level, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection legislation and the EPBC Act that could otherwise protect heritage sites. Another piece of Commonwealth legislation that the committee has found is in clear need of revision, as a result of evidence to the committee, is the Native Title Act, in particular the future act regime and the right and capacity of native title holders to withhold consent for development on their land, as well as the need to remedy the inequality and negotiating positions with future act proponents and native title holders. In this context, the role of the representative bodies and prescribed body corporates needs to be considered, including for them to be adequately resourced so that they can properly participate in negotiations and protect the interests of native title holders, including, of course, the protection of their very important heritage. The outrage over the destruction of Juukan Gorge has ignited investor interests nationally and internationally. The protection of cultural heritage has now become not only a moral and ethical issue but an issue of economic risk. The time for reform is long past. I, along with the member for Leichhardt and I'm sure other members of the committee, want to acknowledge the massive contributions of the PKKP and other traditional owners of the Pilbara for giving evidence to this committee under very difficult circumstances. I want to thank them for their forbearance and their open-mindedness to the prospect for change. It's noteworthy that the committee's report is illustrated by some paintings from Mr Jack Green, a traditional owner from Borroloola, which are very important in telling a story. I, along with, I'm sure, my colleagues, want to acknowledge the work of the committee and its membership. I want to thank Mr Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, for his leadership. It was a particularly difficult inquiry. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague and friend Senator Dodson, who was a very important cog in the wheel of this inquiry and, as I'm sure as the member for Leichhardt would attest, was integral to making sure we had a successful outcome. I also acknowledge someone who's no longer on the committee and no longer in the parliament, former senator Rachel Siewert, who, with a very open mind, made a very positive contribution to the deliberations of the committee. The committee secretariat did an outstanding job, as the member for Leichhardt said, under very difficult circumstances. I want to acknowledge—and I will name them all—Jenny Adams, as Committee Secretary; Bill Pender, as Inquiry Secretary; Siobhan Leyne, as Inquiry Secretary; Kate Harkins as Senior Researcher; Stephen Sherlock, as Senior Researcher; Adam Walker, as Researcher; Ben Russell as Researcher and Sarah Brasser as Office Manager. Deputy Speaker, in the length of time that I've been in this parliament I've been involved in many inquiries, I can say to you that I've not seen an inquiry as important as this. In my terms, it was absolutely vital that the committee undertook this work and exposed the thuggery—really—of some people in the mining industry in this country. But I am very, very pleased to say that change is afoot and that the mining industry is, at last, addressing the need to recognise the proper rights and interests of the First Nations people of this country.
Wavehill, Mr | Statements by Members | House debates
[by video link] Today I pay tribute to my old friend Mr Wavehill, an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary life. He recently passed at his home in Kalkarindji surrounded by his family, two...
[by video link] Today I pay tribute to my old friend Mr Wavehill, an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary life. He recently passed at his home in Kalkarindji surrounded by his family, two days after the 55th anniversary of the historic Wave Hill walk-off. He was born at Low Level in Katherine in the bush to his Mudburra parents, Mini and Left-handed Charlie. Born into cattle, he grew up on stations. He got his first job in Delamere, where he worked for nine years. He then went on to work in many other stations in the region before ending up at Wave Hill. There he met and married the love of his life, Biddy, and they went on to have 10 children. He was a young stockman when he took part in the Wave Hill walk-off. He was there at Wattie Creek when Gough Whitlam symbolically poured the soil into the hand of Vincent Lingiari, giving him back country. Mr Wavehill was an important and strong voice for land rights and protecting country. He was passionate about his family, his community and his culture. He was an active member of the Central Land Council for many years. He was an artist. He loved passing on his knowledge to the rest of us, and it made him so very happy. He had a great smile. He was someone I knew very well. He was a man of stature, grace and humour. He was a gentleman. He was special, one of a kind. His passing is a devastating loss for his family and community. I extend my condolences to his wife, Biddy, extended family and friends. Goodbye, my old friend. Rest in peace.