Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to join with my colleagues in making comments about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 and ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017. I completely endorse the comment made by the shadow minister and by my colleagues who have spoken in the debate so far. I've listened carefully to what they have had to say and I completely endorse their comments. In particular, I have just listened at length to the member for Lingiari and his comments around the actions of the Prime Minister and the importance of a first-nation voice in this parliament and the reasons why it should happen. I completely endorse what he has said.

The shadow minister has outlined clearly what Labor's position is on this piece of legislation. As we have said, we will support this bill in the House but reserve our right to put forward amendments in the other place. We do not have any issue with schedule 1 of the Treasury laws amendment bill. I think that that has been outlined clearly. But, as Labor speakers have clearly outlined, our issue is with schedule 2 of the bill. Schedule 2 goes to some extremely important, straightforward issues that I thought had been resolved. For some reason I understand that the Prime Minister's office has decided to take issue with what has been, as the member for Lingiari said, the administrative definition of aboriginality that has existed since the 1980s within the Commonwealth, in state instrumentalities, in Aboriginal organisations and also in many instrumentalities, including universities, across this country. I know this because I have been involved in these discussions, particularly with land councils in New South Wales that have the responsibility of providing certificates of aboriginality. I can assure the advisers in the box and I can assure the government that those certificates of aboriginality, which are often required by government, are based on the administrative definition—that is, the three-part definition that my colleagues have spoken about. That three-part definition is: (a) that you are of Aboriginal descent; (b) that you identify as an Aboriginal person—in a sense, self identification; and (c) most importantly—and what's been left out of this, incredulously, and, I understand, accepted by the Treasurer's office and not by the Prime Minister's office—that you're accepted as an Indigenous person by the Aboriginal community. In a moment, I will explain why that third part is so important.

By way of background, schedule 2 provides for the appointment to the Productivity Commission of a commission who possesses extensive skills and experience in assessing policies and programs that have a particular impact on first nations people. This proposed commissioner would review the decisions and actions of government, non-government and private sector policies and programs. So it is an incredibly important position. It will review and evaluate not only initiatives or measures that specifically target first nations Australians but would also assess those which while not necessarily designed to affect first nation Australians affect first nation Australians nevertheless.

We should be asking what is working and what isn't. Moreover, this proposed commissioner would have experience in dealing with one or more communities of first nation peoples. The schedule will increase the maximum number of commissioners, not including the commission chair, from 11 to 12. That's all by way of background, but let me go to the heart of why the definition that's being used is race based, which is one of the arguments why there should be changes to the Australian Constitution—which, in this day and age, has race based definitions in it. But I will leave that aside for a discussion for another day.

Labor does support the inclusion of a Productivity Commissioner with the expertise and role that I have already outlined. As the explanatory memorandum to this bill and this schedule acknowledges, there is a clear and established need for greater evaluation of the impact that policies, programs and initiatives have on first nations people. I have served in other parliaments, I have been the director-general of a government agency and I've run non-government organisations I have followed very intimately the reports of the Productivity Commission and I understand very clearly the impacts those reports have in terms of describing what the situation is for first nations people and others, but also, of course, the way in which those issues are used for governments to set agendas, to set targets and set policies. So we understand the importance of that position, and I'm sure the member for Fenner would agree with me.

See this speech in context