Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to general business notice of motion No. 49 standing in the name of Senator Scullion.

Leave granted.

This motion seeks to establish a select committee dealing with the intervention in the Northern Territory. There has been discussion between the parties and I seek leave that the matter continue by way of short debate, as has previously been done in relation to other select committees which have been set up.

Leave granted.

At the request of the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Scullion, I move:

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Remote Indigenous Communities, be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(a)

the effectiveness of Australian Government policies following the Northern Territory Emergency Response, specifically on the state of health, welfare, education and law and order in remote Indigenous communities;

(b)

the impact of state and territory government policies on the wellbeing of remote Indigenous communities;

(c)

the health, welfare, education and security of children in remote Indigenous communities; and

(d)

the employment and enterprise opportunities in remote Indigenous communities.

(2)

That the committee report to the Senate on 30 September 2008, 30 March 2009, 30 September 2009, 30 March 2010 and 30 September 2010.

(3)

That the committee consist of 6 members, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 nominated by any minority group or groups or independent senator or independent senators.

(4)

(a)

On the nominations of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and minority groups and independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee;

(b)

participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c)

a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6)

That the committee elect an Opposition member as chair.

(7)

That the committee elect a Government member as deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(8)

That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9)

That the quorum of the committee be 4 members.

(10)

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

(11)

That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and interim recommendations.

(12)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(13)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

There has been some discussion, I understand, in relation to Senator Siewert’s amendment. I can foreshadow that if it is in the same wording as we understand it to be then it will be acceptable to the government—I mean the opposition. The government can speak for itself. This select committee is a very important one and the terms of reference outline why that is so. Firstly, the select committee, which is to be known as the Select Committee on Remote Indigenous Communities is to inquire into and report on the effectiveness of Australian government policies following the Northern Territory emergency response specifically on the state of health, welfare, education, and law and order in remote Indigenous communities. The select committee will also be looking at the impact of state and territory government policies on the wellbeing of remote Indigenous communities.

This is indeed a very important part of public policy in this country today. Other aspects of the terms of reference deal with the employment and enterprise opportunities in remote Indigenous communities and the health, welfare, education and security of children in remote Indigenous communities—and that is perhaps the most important of all. Under this reference, the committee would report to the Senate on 30 September 2008, 30 March 2009, 30 September 2009, 30 March 2010 and 30 September 2010. What we have are rolling reports. This is in the model of a standing select committee which will have the purview of a very import part of Australian public policy dealing with remote and Indigenous Australia.

It is important that we have these ongoing reports, and of course there has been much debate about the intervention in the Territory. This committee will continually monitor and benchmark outcomes in such things as law and order, health, school attendance, community development and employment. It will also compare conditions in communities covered by the intervention in the Northern Territory with adjacent communities not under intervention and communities in other jurisdictions. As I say, it will provide reports to the Senate on an ongoing basis and that, I believe, will be of great assistance not only to the government but also to the Senate and the other place in dealing with legislation and measures in relation to the intervention.

This is a select committee which will have its hands full. It will be busy. The extent of the issue is such that it does need that length of time that I have mentioned to deal with this. It also demonstrates a commitment that the intervention in the Northern Territory is not a one-off situation but an ongoing situation which is designed to achieve a better outcome for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Senator Scullion had given notice of this motion as a result of his longstanding interest in this area and of course, as a senator for the Northern Territory, he knows this area only too well. The details of the select committee are in the terms of reference, and I commend the reference to the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have circulated an amendment to this motion which seeks to expand the motion slightly to ensure that the committee addresses regional as well as remote Indigenous communities. In fact, the Greens would have preferred to have seen this issue referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, as that is the committee that has been extremely involved in looking at issues affecting Indigenous communities. We do, however, think that an ongoing inquiry such as this is very important, because we do agree that this is going to have ongoing implications for Aboriginal communities. We want to ensure the long-term sustainability of interventions also deals with Indigenous disadvantage.

It is no secret that the Greens have been critical of the nature of intervention, although the Greens are very supportive of federal government involvement and a significant increase in expenditure on addressing disadvantage. Actually looking at the impact of the intervention, the effectiveness of the policies, and the impact of state and territory government policies is also very important. We think it is broad enough to ensure that it goes beyond the existing emergency response to look at all the other issues that relate to the health, welfare, education and the security of children in regional and remote Indigenous communities. So although we think it should have been referred to the community affairs committee, we think that this is the next best option and we will be supporting referring it to a select committee. I would also like to signal that we will be supporting Senator Bartlett’s amendment. I move the Greens amendment to the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber yesterday:

Omit paragraph (1), substitute:

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities, be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(a)

the effectiveness of Australian Government policies following the Northern Territory Emergency Response, specifically on the state of health, welfare, education and law and order in regional and remote Indigenous communities;

(b)

the impact of state and territory government policies on the wellbeing of regional and remote Indigenous communities;

(c)

the health, welfare, education and security of children in regional and remote Indigenous communities; and

(d)

the employment and enterprise opportunities in regional and remote Indigenous communities.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Greens amendment, which seeks to expand the focus of the committee to regional and remote Indigenous communities rather than just remote Indigenous communities. I think it is important to be able to do that. The Democrats in general support the proposal of having a substantial committee inquiry into this very important issue. Given that I have spoken for a number of years now in this chamber about the need to give a much greater and concerted focus and priority to Indigenous issues across the political spectrum, it would only be reasonable for us to support the proposal to do just that. But the hypocrisy we are seeing from the coalition again has to be noted. After three years of preventing a single Senate select committee being established, we now have a fourth Senate select committee being set up in the space of a couple of weeks. As I said a few minutes ago in regard to the Selection of Bills Committee report, the hypocrisy of the coalition putting in place a comprehensive Senate committee inquiry stretching out over 2½ years—it is proposed the committee make its final report in September 2010—into an intervention that this Senate was given one day to examine is unbelievable. I know we are meant to all smile wryly and go, ‘Oh well, that’s politics,’ but I just find that too hard, frankly. The gall is beyond belief—even for politicians. That is very different from agreeing with—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although you support the motion.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. I have no doubt at all—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kemp interjecting—

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see why Senator Kemp cannot see the difference between supporting a proposal and supporting a proposal whilst recognising that it is dripping with hypocrisy. It is not surprising Senator Kemp cannot differentiate those two things, because he has shown that he is incapable of recognising gall and rampant hypocrisy throughout his career. It is no surprise that he cannot see it now, but it is overwhelming to anybody who has the opportunity to look at this objectively. We have an opportunity here to examine this issue and look at the impacts of the intervention—and, I might say, Indigenous issues more broadly. That opportunity is welcomed and I do hope the Senate engages with it constructively.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are supporting it?

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am supporting it. It is very observant of you, Senator Kemp! It is amazing: it is good that you have finally followed a debate well enough to realise that when I say, ‘I support something,’ then, yes, I support it. I appreciate that when you stand up and say, ‘I support something,’ you usually have half of your brain looking for the excuse to back out of what you have just said, because you are used to saying one thing and doing another. As my record shows in this chamber, when I say I support something, I support it. I appreciate that is a strange concept for you, Senator Kemp—who is, I might say, interjecting from somewhere far removed from his actual seat. But, again, following proper process and having respect for the Senate is not something I have expected from Senator Kemp for a long period of time. The simple fact is that the intent of what is being done here is welcomed.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tedious.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right, Senator Kemp; you are incredibly tedious.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Kemp, I have to call you to order. If you wish to interject, please do so from your seat.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does need to be put on the record, though, the disparity between the actions of the coalition when they were in government in preventing inquiries, including into the Northern Territory intervention, and what they are doing here. I called for a proper examination of the issues when the Liberals were in government. It is sad that it took them until they got into opposition to actually allow proper scrutiny, but now that we have the opportunity for proper scrutiny, it is something that should be welcomed.

It should be stated that this does not just concern the Northern Territory intervention and its effectiveness; it also concerns the impact of state and territory government policies—which also need to be thoroughly examined—the health, welfare, education and security of children in remote and regional Indigenous communities across the board and employment and enterprise opportunities.

I do not have any particular objection to a Senate committee going for 2½ years. Senator Sherry would know; he was, I think, part of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation that went for about three or four parliaments. The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare back in the 1980s and early 1990s also went for about six or seven years. So a committee going for a prolonged period of time is not necessarily a bad idea if—and this is the key issue and I do hope the Senate committee is able to achieve it—the committee operates constructively with a genuine attempt being made to leave the politics out of it, to take the point scoring out of it, to stop the ideological arm wrestling, to stop the using of Indigenous people as political footballs and to actually look at the issues. That is part of the reason why I have foreshadowed my amendment.

The other thing we have seen with this proposal, as with every other select committee that the coalition have now suddenly seen a need to set up, is that they are taking the chair for themselves. It may well be that the best person for the role of committee chair is one of the coalition members, but I think we really need to be looking at the principle of the best person getting the job. In my view, and this is the reason behind my foreshadowed amendment, once the members of the committee are known, the committee should—and it could be an early test of its ability to work in a non-partisan way—determine for itself who should be the chair, and then the deputy chair would be from a different party from that of the chair. I can say this now as I clearly have no self-interest in this as this committee will obviously not feature any Democrat, but it will have a person from the crossbenches. I expect this would be a Green, but that is still to be determined.

Depending on who those people are, it is quite possible that the best chair for that committee could be a Green or a government person. The select committee should not be set up specifically—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It certainly won’t be you, Andrew.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it will not. You are right, Senator Kemp. You have indeed listened to me once again. As I said, I will not be here and neither will you. Can I suggest that your not being part of this prolonged inquiry is a massive chance for this committee to actually operate in a constructive way, because your record, particularly on using Indigenous people for opportunities to score cheap political points and smear people, is one that is clearly on the record in this chamber. And you are doing it once again right now. Thank you for being true to form and proving my point. It also demonstrates that instantly giving the chair of the committee to a coalition senator, regardless of who it is, is not necessarily the best way to guarantee that the committee can do its job effectively.

I welcome the fact that the Senate will decide to have a comprehensive examination of regional and remote Indigenous communities. I very much urge whoever serves on the committee to do all they can to make it a constructive, non-partisan series of inquiries and reports over the 2½ years for which it will be operational. We do need to remember why it is that we are doing this. We are doing it to try to improve the situation for Indigenous Australians. We are not doing this, I hope, to try to provide a rolling opportunity for political point scoring and ideological wedge making in regard to the Indigenous affairs policy debate. Unfortunately, we are still seeing that from time to time in this chamber and we are still seeing it from time to time from some in the mainstream media. Indigenous peoples deserve far better than that.

If there is one area where all of us in all political parties have failed comprehensively across the board decade after decade, it is in our approach to Indigenous Australians. This inquiry and the committee itself will be a big test of whether we have managed to evolve beyond that and whether we are mature enough to do our jobs responsibly. I hope whoever serves on the committee is able to do that. One way of improving the chances of it doing that is to pick the best person for the job of chair—it is a bit of a novel concept, I suppose—rather than just handing it automatically to a coalition member.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor government opposes the establishment of this committee. This is the fourth such select committee that has been established in recent months.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit like your superannuation committee. Remember the select committee on superannuation that you served on?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do remember it. Senator Kemp, you are not going to be here from 1 July. Go and have a cup of coffee. You are being totally disruptive. People want to get away for Easter. You will not be here after 1 July so, in the nicest possible terms, please stop disrupting the chamber so that we can get on with business.

The terms of reference for the proposed committee are clearly a grab bag of issues encompassed by the Northern Territory emergency response. In relation to the Northern Territory, it is too early to establish such a committee when the government has committed to establishing an independent and transparent review to operate from the 12-month mark. It is expected that the review will report by the end of September 2008.

The review of the Northern Territory emergency response will provide an independent assessment of the effectiveness of each of the measures that comprise the emergency response. In relation to the other terms of reference, the matters to be addressed are extraordinarily wide and it is inevitable that the committee will cover so much ground it will fail to come up with sensible advice and policy recommendations.

The suggestion that the Commonwealth parliament should assess the impact of state and territory government policies, whilst perhaps well intentioned, will inevitably get bogged down in claim and counterclaim. The Australian government, in contrast to the previous government, is committed to strong evidence based policy formulation in relation to Indigenous disadvantage. The government has committed to closing the gap in relation to key social indicators of Indigenous disadvantage: halving the gap in life expectancy within a generation, halving the gap in mortality rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children under five within a decade and halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievement within a decade.

We are committed to open and transparent policy formulation processes which assess progress objectively. Already the Productivity Commission’s Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage reports are making real progress in providing a robust and independent framework for assessing progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage, including in remote Australia. It is not clear to us on this side of the Senate that the proposed committee will add value in terms of developing appropriate policy responses.

In relation to the Senate committee system, we already have an appropriate set of committees. There is no reason why the existing community affairs committee ought not be asked to inquire into any specific issues arising in remote Australia. All this proposal will do is establish yet another select committee, the fourth, which will trawl for media stories and opportunities to be negative. The real need is for the Senate and its committees to focus on developing policy solutions for the very real needs of remote Indigenous communities. To do that would require a much greater focus than is evident in the motion before us today. It will require the identification of particular issues and terms of reference to provide a road map of the sorts of issues that the committee will examine. This motion from the Liberal opposition has just been cobbled together at the last minute.

The proposal before the Senate is an abuse of the Senate processes. It is attempting to lock in for the next 2½ years a committee structure which is designed to frustrate the legitimate right of the next Senate coming in after 1 July to structure its own approach to addressing these issues. The Liberal opposition should be taking on board the Prime Minister’s visionary offer of bipartisanship in the Indigenous affairs area, and commit to working within the committee structure that they themselves established. The current opposition when in government established the existing committee structure of the Senate. Because it no longer suits them, because they now find themselves in opposition, they are creating select committee after select committee. That is what they are doing. It is an abuse of the Senate process.

Senator Bartlett’s foreshadowed amendment to the motion makes sense—but it is essentially a second-best outcome given the fundamental flaws in the motion from Senator Scullion. We call on senators opposite to reconsider this motion. It is setting a precedent for the future for the creation of select committees. Oh! The lights have gone out. Has the microphone gone out? That is probably more important. We have the thumbs up; the sound system is working. Fortunately, I can still read in the dark. We call on members opposite to reconsider this motion. It is poorly conceived, it will be poorly executed and will only serve to detract from the potential role of contributing positively to addressing Indigenous disadvantage and closing the gap. Therefore the Labor government will be opposing the creation of this committee.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address my remarks to Senator Bartlett’s amendment, which has not been moved yet. The opposition believes that Senator Bartlett’s amendment is flawed because if the decision by the committee for a chairman cannot be reached then it has to come back here to be determined in this chamber. It is our view that that would delay the very good work of this committee and that furthermore—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite might think that overseeing a matter as important as this is to Indigenous affairs is not important and that that good work can be delayed, but we in the coalition do not believe that. We also believe that there is a precedent with prior select committees—where the committee elect a chairman from amongst the opposition members—and that is exactly what is proposed. It is normal Senate convention that those who propose a Senate select committee have the chair of the committee. That is the normal convention. Those are the reasons the coalition will not support Senator Bartlett’s amendment, and we believe that it is important that the committee be able to appoint a chairman from its members as quickly as possible and get on with what is very important work.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I foreshadowed these amendments and I have spoken to them, so I will move them now. I will just clarify this; I think it is important. It has been stated that convention is that the opposition have the chair of the select committee; that is not correct. There have been a number of select committees. The very last select committee that was established before the clampdown in 2005 was chaired by Senator Allison from the crossbench. The superannuation committee that I referred to earlier that Senator Sherry was a longstanding member of—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator Bartlett is misrepresenting my remarks. I said the convention was that the person who sought the establishment of the select committee normally had the chair.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order. Senator Bartlett, please continue.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, but that is still incorrect. The superannuation committee sat over a long period of time and it was not just the person or the party that came up with the idea that said, ‘We’re taking the chair, thank you.’ The superannuation committee chair varied, and there were chairs from both parties; it was not necessarily matched with who was in government or opposition. It appeared to me—perhaps I was being naive—that they picked the best person for the job. Senator Watson was the chair of that committee for some time because he was recognised as being extremely capable.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Bartlett, could you please just move your amendments. You have already spoken in the debate.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I was speaking to my amendments because I could not move them earlier, because I had to foreshadow them.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Bartlett, you need leave to move your amendments.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Having corrected the record, I move:

Omit paragraph (6), substitute:

(6)   That the chair of the committee be elected by and from the members of the committee, and in the absence of agreement on the election of a chair, duly notified to the President, the allocation of the chair be determined by the Senate.

Omit paragraph (7), substitute:

(7)   That the Deputy chair of the committee being a member of a different party or group from the chair, be elected by and from the members of the committee immediately after the election of the chair.

Question negatived.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ellison’s), as amended, be agreed to.