Download Fragment

Friday, 23 November 1979

Senator KEEFFE (Queensland) - I want to speak in this first reading debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) on a number of matters affecting Aborigines. I suppose that if it had not been so close to the end of the session I would have made separate speeches on each of the three subjects in first reading debates. However, I propose to group them in this single contribution. I want to refer first of all to what I believe to be a matter of national importance for Aborigines. In case the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is worried, I point out that the document I have in my possession again is one of those documents that blew out of somebody's window. However, it was obtained honestly. It is a letter signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). There seems to be a tendency to impose a good deal of secrecy- it appears to be getting worse- in respect of a number of very sensitive areas of government, not the least of which, of course, is Aboriginal affairs. I will read a copy of a letter that was forwarded by the Prime Minister to Senator Chaney on 4 October 1979. It states:

My Dear Minister,

I have been considering possible areas of further review, along the lines of the program effectiveness reviews initiated last year.

There was much of value in the previous round of PER 's. Although they were drawn upon, to varying degrees, in the 1979-80 Budget Cabinet process, they are not only, or even primarily, concerned with the appropriate level of funding for a program. The main focus is how to spend more effectively whatever money has been allocated to the particular programs in the Budget context. They provide a means of bringing together information about the effectiveness of the programs in question and their impact on clients, assessing the continuing appropriateness of the program objectives in the light of changing circumstances and presenting options to improve the future effectiveness of the programs. When appropriate they can assist the development of positive but effective new initiatives.

It seems to me it would be valuable if a review into Aboriginal health were conducted to draw together information on the broad range of Commonwealth programs which directly or indirectly aim to improve the health and lifestyle of Aboriginals, and to clarify the direction of Commonwealth policy. This would of course also involve reviewing the alcoholism problems and the extent to which Government policies and programs impact on it.

Attached for your consideration is an outline with a little more detail, on some of the issues which might usefully be examined. As with previous PER's I would like to envisage that a senior level task force should undertake the reviewthe members of the task force drawn from the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Health and Finance, Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Social Welfare Secretariat. A report could be expected by early April 1980. If you agree that a review of the Aboriginal health programme would be of benefit, I would appreciate it if you could nominate an appropriate officer to co-ordinate with my Department. The relevant officer is Mrs A. Kern (725 853).

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to our colleague the Minister for Health.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Fraser

The letter sets out a series of areas for examination as follows:

That last word 'Finance' is significant. I think this is what the letter is all about- a further cutting back on finance in this area. The Prime Minister's letter continues:

This raises a number of issues. First, what is the point of having one more review? Already there have been a number. Each time the Government has a new look at Aboriginal affairs it establishes a new type of review, and a new committee. Why was there no consultation at all with the Aboriginal communities? I understand that this proposal has been seen by only a very limited number of people. Honourable senators will note from even the directive- for that is what it is- of the Prime Minister to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that it is not intended to consult Aboriginal people further. This worries me, particularly in view of the stated Government policies on self-determination and selfmanagement. Does it mean that there will be less money for Aboriginal health, or a cutting back in some of the more sensitive areas which are not readily available to the scrutiny of the Australian public? I refer to the trachoma plan and projects of that nature. On the other hand, if it is a fair dinkum approach- which I doubt greatly- one would expect that the first people to be consulted would be those in the Aborginal organisations. A number of months ago now a national black health program was proposed. It received lip support from representatives of the Government but no action concerning it was taken. If this is to be a back-door approach to such a program the Government ought not to be so secretive about it. The Government should at least tell the Opposition about it. Certainly it should tell the black communities of this country.

Representatives of some 14 Aboriginal medical services, meeting in a two-day conference in Sydney on 16 and 17 November, just last week, rejected unanimously the idea of another task force being appointed. Their decision contained the following proviso:

There is grave need for the Government to come clean in regard to these sorts of attitudes. I have no record of the response of Senator Chaney, but presumably he has agreed to the proposalagain without telling either the black organisations or the Parliament what is going on.

I wish now to make brief reference again to the Yarrabah problem. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is to go to Yarrabah towards the end of next week- I hope with his Queensland State Government counterparts and other people. Honourable senators will recall that Senator Bonner placed on record, in the course of a question earlier this week, the fact that a counter petition had been taken up in the Yarrabah community. I have here a list of names to be added to the petition which was referred to by both Senator Bonner and the Minister a few days ago. I read it again for the record:

The original petition, which is a vote of no confidence in the council and which I referred to in this chamber about a week ago, will now be dealt with by the Queensland Government. One wonders whether the suggested threat of the Director of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, Mr Killoran, to the State Minister will be followed through. These additional signatures increase the number who signed the counter petition.

I wish to refer now to another great problem which has been encountered at Hope Vale Mission near Cooktown in the course of an argument which has proceeded for a number of weeks. I have received the following letter from a group of teachers in Queensland:

Then there are five signatures. I have been very low key on this dispute which has caused a tremendous amount of psychological, physical and personal problems for a lot of people at the Hope Vale Mission. But I think it is time for the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to take an active role. I intend to incorporate a document- the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who was at the table earlier and the Acting Deputy President have agreed to its incorporation- that sets out a good story that was made to the Queensland Teachers Union by the teacher who was most affected by the dispute.

At the beginning of the dispute, a State member of parliament, Mr Underwood, asked in the Queensland Parliament a series of relevant questions dealing with the Hope Vale dispute of the Minister for Education. The Minister's reply was less than satisfactory. It is obvious that he was dominated by the Premier of Queensland and/or the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Charles Porter. I am particularly disturbed by a number of the points made by the

Minister. I think I could challenge every single one of the Minister's answers. Jurgen Peterfeld. the teacher involved, was allegedly dismissed or given a punitive transfer because of his increasing involvement in mission and community administration matters. But this merely consisted of his objection to inaccurate and slanderous minutes of an administrative meeting. He organised an extraordinary administration meeting to have those minutes discussed. The Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and the Chairman of the Hope Vale Mission Board personally intervened to prevent the meeting taking place. However, the meeting was ultimately held.

A number of unsatisfactory features in relation to the organisation of the mission were exposed. The Minister claimed that on 31 August the teacher was in charge of a group of children witnessing a public meeting at which it was intended to announce, and perhaps even justify, the sacking of the farm project manager. He had an agreement with the Grade 6 teacher that he would supervise the children. In fact, this was not even in school hours; it was before school started. He was going to supervise the children at this public meeting as part of a social work project and then they would go back to school. This was taken as an incident to transfer a teacher who showed a very great degree of interest in the wellbeing of the children. Incidentally, when the argument developed, nobody could poke the finger of scorn at this teacher for lack of qualifications, inability to do the job or lack of devotion to the cause of education of black children. Another incident where he was alleged to have interfered was in asking why an Aboriginal was being taken away by police.

I have here another statutory declaration and I will read into the Hansard the relevant sections of it later. It reveals that another man on the mission, who also was known for his courageous attitudes, was recently arrested. When he asked why he was being arrested, they told him that after they had gaoled him they would let him know what he had been arrested for. These are terribly unsatisfactory actions which obviously have been carried out either under the direction or with the connivance of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and to a greater or lesser degree with the missionaries on that mission.

Part II section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, guarantees right to equality before the law. So irrespective of local by-laws or section 35 of the Vagrant, Gaming and other Offences Act 1 93 1 -7 1 , the Aborigine in question still had to be charged or arrested before he could be physically removed to gaol. If that is an open challenge to properly constituted authority- and this was the allegation against the teacher- then there is something pretty rotten with the laws in the State of Queensland. The Aboriginal who was taken away was never charged and the teacher has never been charged, but he was punished in that he received a punitive transfer to Gladstone West, two months before he would have finished the school year. As he was a teacher at one of the higher primary grades, quite obviously this was seriously going to affect the teaching of those children in the final weeks of the term.

There are a number of other points that I would like to raise, but because of limitation of time in this debate, I will not be able to cover them all. Protests were made from the Queensland Teachers Union. The DirectorGeneral of the Department of Education then admitted that the Department had received requests from both the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and the President of the Lutheran Church, Queensland District, to have this teacher transferred. This was an unfair interference by two organisations, neither of which has anything to do with the Department of Education. The very rudiments of democracy were not even observed. In situations involving teachers- this appeared to be a disciplinary procedure- one could demand adherence to the procedures outlined by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the International Labour Organisation that every teacher should enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure and, in particular, the right to be informed in writing of the allegations and the grounds for them; the right to full access to the evidence in the case; the right to defend himself and to be defended by a representative of his choice; adequate time being given to the teacher for the preparation of his defence; the right to be informed in writing of the decisions reached and the reasons for them; and the right of appeal to clearly designated competent authorities or bodies.

A major report was presented by the Lutheran Mission dealing with Hope Vale and Bloomfield. It concerned a Cooktown visitation and a report compiled by H. P. V. Renner, K. J. Kirsch and G. L. Rose between 1 1 and 29 June 1978. There are a number of very interesting features in this report which will probably become the subject of a debate in this chamber as far as I am concerned, perhaps in the next session. Some criticisms are made. The document is still classified and very few copies are available, except within the Lutheran Mission organisation. The Aboriginal, who was arrested under the circumstances without charges being laid, has signed a statutory declaration saying that he was not drunk- he had a potential to be vocal- but he claims that on the morning of 3 1 August he had had only one 7-oz glass of wine just before the meeting, although he admitted that he had had a bit of grog the night before. He went to bed about midnight and had at least seven hours sleep before he appeared at that meeting. So there is no way in the world that he could have been accused of being under the influence of alcohol or of being a nuisance at the meeting. He was told not to participate in the meeting. He sets out all of these facts in a statutory declaration which has been duly signed and witnessed.

Roy Mclvor, who had occupied a prominent position in that community, has played a prominent role over a period in trying to democratise the mission, has also come in for a lot of criticism. Mr Leigh van der Hoek, who came to the mission on the Lutheran World Federation's recommendation in the capacity of Project Supervisor and Agriculturalist, to help guide and teach the people at Hope Vale in this field, was also sacked. In other words, if a person disagrees with the DAIA at any stage, or even if a person is suspected of disagreeing with it, that person is for the big drop- to use an Australian slang phrase. That applied to Mr van der Hoek. It applied to Jurgen Peterfeld, the teacher, and it applies to any Aborigine on the settlement who does the wrong thing. I have shown a statement made by Mr Jurgen Peterfeld, of the Queensland Teachers Association, to the Minister and the Acting Deputy President in the chamber at the time. I seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

---