Standing Committee on Social Issues

Debate resumed from 12 November 2008.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [3.13 p.m.]: In concluding my remarks in this take-note debate I draw the attention of the House to page 166 of the committee's report, which relates to indigenous students with a disability. The committee heard a great deal of evidence about the compounding impact of disability on indigenous people. Certainly, it is my view that a great deal more work needs to be done on assessing and addressing the impact of disability on the indigenous population. I also place on record that I have enjoyed working on this inquiry with other committee members. I commend the way in which the inquiry was conducted from beginning to end and look forward to the tabling of the final report. I commend the interim report to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.14 p.m.]: I should start by noting that serving on the Standing Committee on Social Issues was the first opportunity I have had to serve on a committee. I found the cooperation and courtesy of committee members to each other and to me quite extraordinary. No doubt, in part it flowed from the calm and thoughtful committee chairmanship of the Hon. Ian West, who, when required to calm down a member in confronting and at times amazing circumstances, seemed to do so in the most appropriate and thoughtful way. I thank him specifically for the way in which he dealt with matters before the committee.

I commence my contribution by noting that a number of moving and passionate contributions were made to the committee. Indigenous disadvantage rightly raises high emotion and, indeed, different perspectives on the way forward within the Aboriginal community. Those differences should be acknowledged but not seen as a point of criticism because there actually is no right or wrong way to deal with many of these issues. In truth there is no silver bullet, no one answer that will provide a panacea for all past ills and injustices that have been inflicted on the Aboriginal community.

There must be recognition and acknowledgement by us all, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, that a society that seeks to paint itself as just and compassionate cannot allow a continuance of the gap in outcomes for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of the community. It would be fair to say that the interim report is presented with the unanimous support of all committee members. The committee worked cooperatively and, indeed, in a spirit of genuine concern for the evident problems within the Aboriginal community. That said, no doubt various committee members see a different emphasis for the way forward. Just as one should rightly respect the differing views within the Aboriginal community, one should acknowledge also that the differing emphases of committee members does not reflect any greater or lesser compassion but, rather, simply a differing view of the way to close the gap.

The most moving part of this inquiry for me was attending the theatrette in this Parliament to hear the delivery by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of the apology. On entering the theatrette I had little doubt that I was about to witness a piece of new symbolism that of itself would achieve no possible good. I was of the view that such symbolism would do nothing to close the gap and instead would simply pander to those I could loosely describe as the basket weavers of Balmain. I was wrong, and I am happy to admit that fact.

As the speech was delivered I could hear the sobbing of people gathered there. There was a palpable air of distress in the theatrette. Nothing was made up. One could describe nothing other than obvious relief that finally the Prime Minister and, therefore, the Australian Government were prepared to admit that people had been wronged, that families had been torn asunder, and that people had been denied their rights and privileges under Australian law. And let there be no doubt: children were torn from the breasts of their mothers for no reason but the colour of their skin. I too am sorry not just for the wrong done to so many people, but also for my inability to understand the depth of the feelings of those people.

I must move on to deal with the other matters. I note that we all share a responsibility for closing the gap. We must all recognise that we have dealt with these problems very badly in the past and, indeed, have been unwilling to admit our shortcomings in dealing with the very significant disadvantages the Aboriginal community has faced. Equally, we have not been prepared to acknowledge the injustices and prejudices the Aboriginal community has endured since colonisation began in 1788.

The report demonstrates that there are significant gaps, not just in life expectancy but also in a number of other indicators of social wellbeing. Specifically in that regard it is worth noting and placing on the record the following information. Life expectancy at birth for males in the indigenous community is 60 years but in the non-indigenous community it is 76.4 years; life expectancy at birth for females in the indigenous community is 65.1 years, but in the non-indigenous community it is 82.3 years; the median age in indigenous communities is 20 years, but 37 in non-indigenous communities; year 10 educational attainment in the indigenous community is 32 per cent and in the non-indigenous community it is 25.2 per cent, whereas year 12 educational attainment in the indigenous community is a mere 22.2 per cent compared with 47.4 among the non-indigenous communities; individual income among people in the indigenous community is $278 compared with $466 among members of the non-indigenous community.

Earlier I referred to a difference in emphasis among members of the committee. There can be no doubt about my concern that the figures to which I have referred indicate key and significant shortcomings that must be addressed and against which any government must be measured if one is to consider whether that government has delivered a just and compassionate society. To put it another way, the figures to which I have referred form the basis of producing key performance indicators of success or failure. In truth it is my view that what is most important is achieving success in improving the outcomes by reference to key performance indicators. In truth I have less interest in the processes that achieve that end. I know that view is not shared entirely by my fellow committee members. And I accept that, just as I have been wrong in the past, no doubt I will be wrong in the future; nevertheless, I must say that if we cannot achieve outcomes that can be measured, we are failing the community. We must achieve outcomes.

If I may put it another way, it is my view that we should not allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that, whether it upsets people or not, we have an obligation as human beings living in a civil society to ensure that all people have a fair go; that no-one suffers from the effects of alcoholism; that women are not assaulted by their partners or other members of their family; that children are not neglected and have a bed to sleep in and are fed, cared for and loved; that children are not sexually assaulted, whether it is by siblings, other family members or strangers; and that children go to school and find the experience sufficiently rewarding that they will stay at school and complete year 12. That is the message I wish to deliver. It is for the community generally and for the Government specifically to design and develop programs that ensure members of the Aboriginal community enjoy the same living standards and standards of health, education and life expectancy as those enjoyed by the community as a whole. This interim report is a significant step in the right direction. I encourage all members of the House, the Parliament and the community to read it carefully and consider the tragedy that it portrays.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.23 p.m.]: I endorse the interim report and, as did the member who preceded me, I recommend it to members of Parliament and to the community as a whole. The report is important because it sets out in graphic detail the extent and dimensions of Aboriginal disadvantage in the community, about which every Australian in every community in New South Wales should be aware. I concur strongly with remarks made by previous speakers that clearly outlined not just what is in the report but what the report meant to them and to us all. I will not attempt to repeat those remarks. However, I make the observation that the inquiry was born from a sense of shame that all people of Australia should feel about the treatment of Aboriginal people.

It is simply unacceptable that there is a 17-year life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, and it is simply unacceptable that there is any life expectancy difference based on race or ethnicity. But it is not just a matter of life expectancy, as the Hon. Trevor Khan pointed out; it is also a matter of disease and morbidity, and disadvantage and its associated problems, such as social violence, unemployment, incarceration and interaction with the criminal justice system. Even more than that, we should feel ashamed because we have tolerated cycles of disadvantage that are transferred from one generation to the next and that replicate disadvantage suffered by Aboriginal parents to their children and their grandchildren.

As one would expect from a community that has been so thoroughly dispossessed of its lands and culture, social dislocation and factionalism have grown within its societies. Moreover, 200 years of racism have wrought a shocking toll among Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. As previous speakers have pointed out, listening to the evidence that was presented to the committee was a very telling experience for all members. Certainly everything I have mentioned to this point was strongly evident in what we heard from witnesses and observed during site visits. But much more than that, there is another side to the Aboriginal community that comes from a deep sense of caring, a sense of pride in traditions and a strong commitment to a new future and to building new and lasting social relationships based on Aboriginal values in a modern context. The evidence showed that in this regard steps were being taken by the Aboriginal community, often with assistance from the New South Wales State Government, the Federal Government and local government—and sometimes despite the efforts of all three levels of government. We saw Aboriginal communities taking control of their destiny to build a stronger future for their children.

There was no more uplifting sight than seeing Aboriginal communities at quite a number of projects we visited getting their act together and seriously creating a future for their kids. Like the previous speaker, I was very moved by the impact of the Prime Minister's apology. Like the overall majority of Australians, I applaud the Prime Minister and his Government for taking that important step. But I must say that, moved as I was by the Prime Minister's apology, I was more moved by its impact on the Aboriginal communities that we visited and the way in which it instilled in them a sense of pride and a sense that the rest of the Australian community would take responsibility for actions carried out over the past 210 years and for the impact that those actions had on Aboriginal communities.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the evidence, and in this I depart from the comments of the previous speaker, was not just the importance of money being spent on Aboriginal communities—yet there is no question that spending more money more often will be important if we are to close the gap—but also, based on the international evidence we received, the importance of creating a sense of self-governance, a sense of authority over their lives and over the lives of all Aboriginal people within Aboriginal communities, and a sense of being able to define a destiny for themselves that makes sense within the modern context as well as within the context of their own culture.

The interim report is a very well-designed document, for which I take absolutely no credit. Clearly, the credit lies with the committee staff, who worked so hard to pull together the evidence. The structure of the report is a very important statement of the way forward for a government that is thinking about Aboriginal communities and about how we can close the gap. We have spent some time worrying about measuring outcomes instead of looking at the way so many programs and strategies have been ineffectively monitored against their targets. It highlights the need for us not only to measure outcomes but also to measure outcomes in a way that is relevant and meaningful to Aboriginal communities.

We looked carefully at coordinated service delivery. One feature of the inquiry that struck me strongly was the sheer number of organisations involved in delivering services to Aboriginal communities and how, in many cases, they were not working together in a way that produced an optimal outcome. Earlier I mentioned the need to develop a sense of partnership in service delivery where Aboriginal communities have a large measure of control beyond simply being clients but are equal partners in the design, implementation and assessment of programs. One issue that came through time and again was the devastating impact of pilot programs that were successful but then lost their funding. We looked closely at employment mentoring and training amongst Aboriginal people because it was clear from the evidence we took that there was a need for economic development to break the cycle of welfare dependency and to create an economic future for Aboriginal communities. The report makes for important reading. I hope that it will provide a significant volume of evidence in the debate about the future of Aboriginal policy in New South Wales.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.