Senate debates

Thursday, 16 August 2007

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007; Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007; Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008

In Committee

10:33 pm

Photo of Andrew BartlettAndrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats oppose clauses 4 to 6 in the following terms:

(1)    Clauses 4 to 6, page 2 (line 3) to page 5 (line 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

Likewise, this was debated in some detail earlier on. It is the same issue: the Democrats believe that there should not be any exemption from the Racial Discrimination Act—in some ways, particularly in this area. Whatever merit there is or is not in encouraging more responsible behaviour or better protection of children through the quarantining of welfare payments, I do not see how that can justifiably be applied on a racial basis. In effect, that is what this legislation as a whole does. It provides welfare-quarantining mechanisms in a whole lot of different capacities, but, with regard to Aboriginal people in prescribed communities in the Northern Territory, it affects them universally. It is a pretty clear example of where, to your average person looking at it, it sure looks like tougher rules for the blackfellas than for the whitefellas. Unless there are extremely good reasons, and it can be clearly demonstrated that it is positive discrimination for the blackfellas to get that type of so-called special treatment, then it is an extremely dangerous and potentially quite destructive thing to do.

I note that a number of people, again who have been broadly supportive of the government’s approach, have nonetheless called for the same sort of non-blanket approach to be taken in the Territory communities with regard to Aboriginal people as is being taken with the more selective application, such as that being proposed in the Cape York trials, for example, where it is only going to apply to people who are deemed to have been incapable of meeting certain criteria or demonstrating ‘irresponsible behaviour’—which I think is the more general, catch-all phrase—rather than catching everybody, including those who are responsible. So it is only in the Territory and in designated Aboriginal communities where that distinction between those who are responsible and those who are not is not being made, where it is being applied universally. It sure looks like racial discrimination to me. Obviously, the Racial Discrimination Act does allow that to occur, where it is positive discrimination or what are labelled ‘special measures’. I find it pretty hard to see how this is a special measure that is a positive discrimination. It is no secret that this whole model of quarantining is influenced fairly heavily, at least in terms of the public presentation of the debate, by what has been considered over a period of time and developed in Cape York, with the welfare trials that are close to being started up there.

Noel Pearson is a key driver of that, and he has also said a number of times that the same principle needs to be applied in the Territory—that there needs to be a distinction between responsible and irresponsible people and that you need to reward positive behaviour. Almost regardless of that debate, if you are looking at the justification for saying that these are special measures and therefore are positively beneficial to Aboriginal people, and you have one of the key Aboriginal defenders of the government’s approach saying, ‘No, this is the wrong way to go; it’s not going to be the best for them,’ then you really have to wonder how solid the government’s assertion is that this is a positively discriminatory or special measure. That highlights the problem with trying to use this catch-all loophole in the Racial Discrimination Act. In some ways this measure looks particularly stark and problematic, and I have not heard any justification to date—unless the minister before us has an absolutely fabulous, rip-snorting justification that he is about to unleash on us—for that type of exemption. I should state again that that is a very fundamental principle. We have pretty much had this debate already, so I shall not talk further. But I do not want that to be taken as any suggestion that we are treating this issue as a run-of-the-mill thing. The Racial Discrimination Act is fundamental. That point needs to be made as often as possible.

Comments

No comments