Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 contains three parts that amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. The schedule would amend the title of a number of office holders from 'general manager' to 'chief executive officer'. Presently, a number of statutory positions created by the ATSI Act 2005 are referred to by the term 'general manager'. These roles are deemed to be better reflected in the title 'chief executive officer'. The change is also designed to bring these agencies into line with the majority of other Commonwealth statutory agencies and companies. The change of title from general manager to chief executive officer does not involve any changes to the remuneration package associated with the positions. Aligning the position titles with comparable positions in other authorities is expected to assist the boards of these agencies attract suitably qualified applicants.

The schedule would ensure that information held by Indigenous Business Australia will be appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions, consistent with similar arrangements. The secrecy provisions relating to IBA in section 191 of the act has prevented the disclosure of information to agencies with responsibility for overseeing Commonwealth administrative practices such as the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner. It has also prevented disclosure of information to Commonwealth agencies working in joint initiatives with Indigenous Business Australia. The amended provision will allow disclosure of information in limited circumstances. The changes to the secrecy provisions applicable to Indigenous Business Australia may assist the organisation to carry out its functions while protecting commercial-in-confidence information. The change should also permit scrutiny of IBA activities by the parliament, namely Senate estimates committees.

Schedule 1 would also remove references to the availability of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes. The two discontinued schemes are not likely to be reinstated, so this item is simply tidying up the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Schedule 2 amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009, allowing the minister to delegate the power to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services. Currently the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009 provide that the minister may appoint a person to the specified position with the acts not allowing a provision for that power to be delegated.

The Executive Director, Township Leasing, is an independent statutory office holder who works with communities to ensure that the township lease is managed effectively and provides a real benefit to the community. The Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services is intended to be independent of government service delivery agencies to drive improvements to the coordination of the development and delivery of Indigenous policies and to facilitate reforms to the development and delivery of such programs. Both of these positions were deliberately designed to remain separate from individual agencies but, however, have been incrementally absorbed into the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This has resulted in their ability to drive reforms being compromised. These positions must remain appointed by the minister and not delegated to the department. The coalition therefore opposes the passage of schedule 2.

We believe it is important that someone be appointed to act in the role of Coordinator-General for Remote and Service Delivery. The coalition believes that, when a vacancy occurs, the minister fills the position with an acting appointment to preserve the separation from the department so necessary with this position. The coalition believes that the current procedure for making such an appointment is neither onerous nor unworkable when compared to the need to maintain separation of the position and the department charged with coordinating service delivery. The coalition continues to lament the fact that this Labor-Greens alliance continues to fail our Indigenous peoples. It continues to allow program failures and bungled policy responses as well as waste and mismanagement to dominate this important area of policy. Australia's Indigenous population deserve better. They deserve much. much better, but this government just cannot deliver.

In the last sitting fortnight I spoke on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. The coalition flagged that it would oppose a schedule of that bill. We indicated that we would seek to amend the bill. Suddenly, however, the government have decided they will pull the schedule. This is part of what is an emerging trend by Labor. The government are so weak that they cannot even stand by their own legislation. If it looks like it might fail, they cut and run. I am advised the government will now amend this bill to remove schedule 2. Given the government's intention to remove schedule 2, the coalition will support the passage of the bill.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 201l. The shadow minister, the member for Menzies, is correct about the schedule with respect to the delegation of the minister's powers to make acting appointments under certain Indigenous acts having been pulled by the government, but I do not agree with his analysis with respect to closing the gap nor what this government is doing in Indigenous affairs. The previous government did not cover itself with glory in this area and surely governments of all persuasions over many decades could have done better.

This legislation amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to change the title of a number of officeholders from general manager to chief executive officer, ensures information held by Indigenous Business Australia or IBAs will be appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions consistent with the legislation and removes references to the availability of a review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes. I will speak a little more about those matters.

The change of name from general manager to chief executive officer for several agency heads does reflect their responsibilities in this day and age. We often refer to chief executive officers of companies and organisations. We do not generally refer to them as general managers. Also I think there is a greater capacity for better remuneration and opportunity to attract a better calibre of person in terms of their skills, talent and ability for that role if they are called a chief executive officer rather than a general manager, which is quite an archaic expression these days in corporate titling. The agency heads affected will be the heads of Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Torres Strait Islander Regional Authority.

These changes in nomenclature bring them in line with other Commonwealth statutory authorities and entities such as the Australian Council for the Arts, Screen Australia, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Sports Commission. This is an example of modernisation of the title and is a sensible outcome. I cannot think of many organisations these days in the business world that refer to people as general managers; they tend to refer to them as chief executive officers. This is an important change. Although it is minor, it does have an impact on what people will consider when they actually apply for those jobs.

The second amendment is what I would call the secrecy provision. It is an amendment to the information in handling provisions which will overcome what has been described—and what I have read—as a historical and narrow focus that has prevented IBA from sharing information with other agencies responsible for government programs and practices such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The old provision that is being done away with prevented information being given to those Commonwealth agencies which happen to work on any initiatives of a joint nature with IBA and the state and territory agencies seeking to work more closely with IBA to achieve better final outcomes for Indigenous peoples across the length and breadth of our country, whether in regional and rural remote areas, rural areas or in metropolitan Australia in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, for example. So the amendment's provisions aim to overcome the previous practical difficulties but with the continued, appropriate protection of sensitive information between agencies. It is in line with what the government has done in relation to other legislation, such as the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, and so it is a sensible outcome. The amendments, as I understand it, are supported by the IBA Board as well.

The third aspect is in relation to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. That amendment relates, as I mentioned before, to a provision in respect of the review of a decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and it removes a reference to two discontinued schemes which are unlikely to be resurrected. They are the Community Support Hostel Grants Scheme and the Student Rent Subsidy Scheme. They have not been operating for many years, so this is a sensible outcome to do away with that provision.

Indigenous Business Australia, IBA, is a statutory body established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005, and its purpose is to create opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities to build wealth, income and assets. Homeownership is a particularly important aspect of this. People who own homes tend to act more sensibly and responsibly in terms of being good corporate citizens—there is a community aspect to their lives and they see themselves as part of civic society. I think IBA, in providing affordable home loans to eligible Indigenous Australians, has carried out good work.

Since 1975, IBA has assisted over 14,000 Australian families into homeownership. This is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion in Indigenous wealth. It approved 363 new housing loans with a total value of $82.2 million in 2009-10, and 92 per cent of those were for first home owners. I think it is a good outcome to get people into the housing market because, as I say, that is good for community life and it is good for families as well, not just for individuals.

IBA also helps eligible Indigenous Australians to establish, acquire and grow businesses—I think that is particularly important—by providing business support services and finance. In 2009-10, IBA approved 81 business loans to the value of $13.6 million. It does not just provide the funds and leave the business owner to battle on; there is a mentoring aspect, support and advice, and they tailor their loans to help the business get off the ground. It is not just creating Indigenous employment. We have a proposal to create 100,000 jobs in Indigenous employment by the end of this decade. It is not just about Indigenous employees but about empowering our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters to actually get into businesses to create wealth and in that way close the gap and end disadvantage. Some recent analysis by IBA shows that more than 90 per cent of the businesses it supports are still operating after one year. That is a pretty good outcome when you consider the failure rate for small businesses. It is much better than what you might call mainstream business operations' success rates.

I mentioned Aboriginal Hostels Ltd before, which provides temporary hostel accommodation to Indigenous people across the country, enabling them to access education, employment, health and other services. Safe, affordable, culturally appropriate accommodation is particularly important. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd operates 53 company hostels, manages 13 Indigenous Youth Mobility Program hostels and contributes funding for 46 community operated hostels through the Community Hostel Grants Program. Nearly 80 per cent of AHL's 560 staff are Indigenous.

I mentioned before one of the organisations in my electorate which is recognised by IBA and which has played an important role in the community—that is, the Kambu Progress Association, based in Ipswich. There are a number of great organisations in my electorate that have assisted the progress of Indigenous people throughout the Ipswich and West Moreton region. Kambu Progress Association, based in Wharf Street in Ipswich, has helped a lot of people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. There is a large Indigenous community in the western corridor of Brisbane, and Kambu have helped a lot of Indigenous people with rental and other accommodation in Ipswich and surrounding country areas.

They are associated with another organisation that I will mention while I am speaking in this debate, Kambu Medical Centre, which provides medical services in a non-discriminatory way and on an easily accessible basis to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. Along with a number of other great organisations, such as We Care Day Respite Centre and Children of the Dreaming, in the Ipswich and West Moreton area, the Kambu Medical Centre plays a big role in trying to close the gap by providing support for those in need with crisis accommodation, help to get into a house, help with employment, help if your son or daughter is facing a criminal justice charge and all-round support. There are some fantastic people in my community who do a great job.

As I said, one of the IBA's recognised associations is Kambu Progress Association, and I thank them for the great work they do, particularly for those Indigenous people who have been impacted so adversely by the floods in the Ipswich and Somerset region. I know from my discussions with many people that the Indigenous communities have been impacted perhaps in a worse way than other communities, because more people live in suburbs like Booval, East Ipswich, Bundamba, Brassall and other areas around and along the Bremer River which were so impacted. I can still see, as I drive through my electorate, houses in which Indigenous people were living in those suburbs I just mentioned—people who have been assisted by Kambu Progress Association. I see those homes are still not occupied and are still in need of reconstruction and recovery. There is a lot of work to be done to help our Indigenous brothers and sisters, and organisations like Kambu Progress Association, tied up with the IBA, have done a terrific job in my area.

While this piece of legislation is pretty technical and fairly minor, it has the impact of streamlining the whole system. It covers a lot of great community organisations that do a lot of great work, particularly in South-East Queensland and in my electorate of Blair. I support the legislation.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 2011. As the previous speaker said, on the face of it there would seem to be only quite minor administrative changes embedded in this amendment. We in the coalition will support those changes, but there is a lot of serious business behind such minor changes.

The first is, for example, the title change for a number of officeholders, such as that from general manager to chief executive officer. Second, we need to ensure that information held by Indigenous Business Australia is appropriately protected but capable of being disclosed by that organisation in carrying out its proper functions, consistent with similar Commonwealth arrangements. This is a point that I stress—too often with Aboriginal agencies, institutions or special strategies or plans, the onerous requirements for review after review, for accountability and for multiple levels of red tape cause an enormous amount of additional workload and stress not just for the Indigenous recipients of that support or those who participate in the administration but also for government services and state, territory and federal agencies across the board.

I often work with my local Indigenous community in the electorate of Murray. I was with them just last week discussing the fact that, if this were a mainstream strategy related to mainstream clients of housing, the scrutiny, reassessment, accounting for spending and so on would be far less onerous, but at the end of the day the information available to the government on what it had invested in the outcomes for the clients of that housing would be no better. It seems to me that this bill is trying to make sure that there is consistency with other similar Commonwealth arrangements when it comes to Indigenous Business Australia.

There is also the removal of references to the availability of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Limited schemes. The objective here is simply to note the passage of time and the fact that those particular Aboriginal Hostels schemes no longer exist. So, as I said, on the face of it these are simple, straightforward amendments; but beneath them there is a legacy of generations of onerous requirements when it comes to managing the lives of Aboriginal people. Too often their lives are so tightly managed that they are emasculated as individuals and their capacity to be independent people—economically and in every sense—has been taken from them.

I refer to an article that has come out in the last 48 hours which says that in the remote Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yakunytjatjara lands in South Australia we have a bit of a debate going on between government officials as to whether the people in the 200-strong community being referred to are starving or just hungry. I think it is extraordinary that in this time in Australia, a developed nation, there should be a statement in this article that reads:

The actions of the Red Cross sparked a fierce debate in Adelaide about whether people in APY were "starving" or whether they went hungry and skipped meals when their money ran out.

I would not have thought that there was much difference between the two if you had very young children not able to eat when the money ran out.

The distress in the APY lands is a consequence of the extraordinary prices that people have to pay in the stores there. Of course it is a remote community and there are extreme costs associated with trucking in food and other perishables from Adelaide and other places further south to parts of this country. The reality is that it is extremely difficult for families to manage meals for all of their dependents for all of the week with the welfare that they depend on. In fact, some people in the APY lands are calling on state and federal governments to introduce a voluntary income management scheme that would allow part of people's welfare payments to be quarantined for use on food and clothing. The response is that South Australian politicians have not been keen about this.

Even when we come to the quarantining of income where it is voluntary—and in this case it may have been voluntary—I refer again to my own electorate and people in my electorate. We are now to become one of the pilot areas to have welfare quarantined for families where the children are seen as being at risk or where women are in abusive households. This will be a voluntary situation where women in particular can volunteer to have their welfare income managed; it may also be that, where families are recommended for this income quarantining by the Child Support Agency, the quarantining is not voluntary.

But, whether it is voluntary or not, the point is that it will not necessarily be followed up in these pilot programs. We are told that there is no automatic training and support in such things as budgeting households, buying nutritious food and managing your finances for those with quarantined welfare: financial literacy, if you like. It is going to be voluntary if the mother—if you can imagine this—can get herself to a place of training, can find the child care and is not totally put off any formal learning system, since she may have absented herself from school many years before.

There is a whole range of problems associated with how we tend to intervene to try to support Indigenous households. We often end up in a situation where we just reinforce a sense of hopelessness and despair and take away an individual's prospects for being independent.

I refer to another situation that has come to my attention fairly recently. There were a number of Indigenous Australians in Western Australia who were very interested in becoming formally qualified and professional cullers of feral animals like camels, donkeys and even wild horses that do great damage to local ecosystems. The Indigenous men in particular expressed great interest in becoming skilled and trained in doing this culling work and, as you would be aware, there are government programs now which fund this culling work. Unfortunately, the Indigenous people were then ruled out of being eligible to do this training on the basis that some had criminal records, that most did not have a driver's licence and that many did not speak adequate English. Here was a prospect of a job—ongoing work which could be self managed. Local Indigenous enterprises could have been brought together to do this very important and ongoing work, but so many barriers were in their way—barriers which may have been put in place for good reasons but which would tend to be expected to apply to non-Indigenous communities, not to a community where English is not the first language and where most Indigenous men have some experience of being charged with offences before they reach the age of 25.

We set up so many barriers between what an Indigenous person may or may not do without taking on board the extraordinary 200 years of the legacy from colonial times. Exploitation in that area on pastoral stations has now been replaced by welfare dependency, which has led to the same situations of communities in poverty, often with very little to look forward to but drinking and the attendant high-risk behaviour, and, indeed, to foetal alcohol syndrome, which can come from women drinking during their pregnancy.

So we have a lot of issues in Indigenous Australia. I believe absolutely that we have bipartisan support in this House that directs what we do to try to make better policy and learn from our mistakes of the past. This bill is quite simple in many ways in trying to recognise some movement in, for example, the Aboriginal hostels arena, where we no longer need to refer to them, and in trying to make sure that Indigenous Business Australia is less burdened by red tape so that it can function like a normal Commonwealth agency.

All of those are highly commendable, but I also want to commend at least two inquiries in this House. One has just been completed: Doing time—time for doing, which was part of the output of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. In this we acknowledged the extraordinary rates of increased incarceration for Indigenous Australians—up 55 per cent for men and up 47 per cent for women. That cannot be tolerated in a developed nation like ours, which takes great pride in the effort and money it spends on foreign aid and supporting developing countries. I commend another report being undertaken by this same committee which looks at the retention of Indigenous community languages and at the same time seeks to make sure that those who help to maintain or revive their community languages are also supported to be fully functional in English. When they go to try to get employment or to get something as simple as a driver's licence or a licence to own and use guns for purposes of feral animal control, they are disadvantaged, discriminated against or exploited because of their lack of English. They can be exploited by others who realise they may not be fully across the issues in front of them.

We need to strive harder to support Indigenous Australia. We need to look to where policy in other countries that have been down a similar road to us can best inform us. But I find the statement I referred to in the Australian, where there is a controversy about whether hungry children are starving or simply hungry, abhorrent. I wonder why we have got to a point where, in a country like Australia, we continue to tolerate conditions such that when, if we were viewing the same settlements in—say—Rwanda or Zimbabwe or Papua New Guinea, we would be shocked and dismayed and instantly require that something different be done.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by acknowledging the contribution of the member for Murray. We are on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs together and so share similar concerns. We are also on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, where we are also looking at matters that touch on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I read those comments in the paper the other day, and the implications in Australia in 2011 are certainly worth considering.

The Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 makes minor governance and business changes for portfolio bodies in the Indigenous affairs portfolio, including Indigenous Business Australia. It is important that organisations that support our efforts to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage be able to operate efficiently. Why is this important? I found that out in my very first day at work in this building, 13 February 2008. The first item of business, before we started, was a welcome to country, which had never happened in Canberra, and the second item of business was an apology to Australia's Indigenous people read by Prime Minister Rudd, the member for Griffith. It was certainly a great way to start in this job. It focused the mind of an Anglo-Saxon Australian on some unfinished business that has existed in Australia for a long time—since 1770 or 1788 or even back beyond that. I quote a couple of sections from that apology which focused my mind when researching my speech for this rather minor piece of legislation before the House. Prime Minister Rudd, as he then was, said:

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

He then went on to say:

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

The reason I quote extensively from that apology is not just that it was my first day in this building but also that I think it touches on that hollow or void, as I think I have referred to it before, at the heart of what Australia is about. We know what we are about economically—we have a very healthy economy. We know where we are with some of our historical links—our links with Asia, South America, North America, Europe, Africa et cetera. We know many of those things, but I think that, as Kevin Rudd touched on, the reality is that we had never really worked out what is the spirit of Australia—and I am not just talking about ads and the like. The reality is this nation was founded by people who came here in boats. Maybe that is why we have had such paranoia about boats ever since. The French arrived here three days later in boats. I think people were obsessed about the Russians, the Germans, the Japanese and then the Vietnamese and the like arriving by boat. We have always have had a paranoia about boats. Among the unfinished business that the apology to Australia's Indigenous people touched on was that we have to take the next steps to close the gap. This legislation before the House is one small part of doing that.

Indigenous Business Australia, a statutory authority established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act, creates opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities to build assets and wealth. As we know, assets and wealth are a very important part of closing the gap. Home ownership is an important step in economic independence, and the IBA provides access to affordable home loans for eligible Indigenous Australians. In fact, since 1975, IBA has assisted over 14,000 families into home ownership. This is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion in Indigenous wealth. If you look at institutionalised poverty of any groups within communities, often the big problem is that they do not have intergenerational wealth. One of the ways to pass on wealth is in our homes. You see this phenomenon in shows like The Wire,which is about crime in Baltimore in the US. The communities that do not pass on housing value are often trapped in a poverty cycle. It is communities that can pass on an increase in wealth that are able to break through, whether they are first-generation migrants or 10th-generation migrants.

The IBA approved 363 new housing loans with a total value of $82.2 million in 2009-10. Ninety-two per cent of these loans were to first home buyers. IBA also helps eligible Indigenous Australians to establish, acquire and then grow businesses by providing business support services and business finance. In 2009-10, IBA approved 81 business loans to the value of $13.6 million. IBA does not just provide the funds and leave businesses to battle on their own and see what happens; the loan recipients are given tailored support to give their businesses every chance of success. Some recent analysis by IBA shows that more than 90 per cent of businesses that it supported are still operating after one year. I think that is much better than the success rate of mainstream businesses which, as a rule of thumb, have a failure rate of about one in three in their first year. That 90 per cent survive after one year shows that the practical help they receive, coupled with a good plan and a bit of market luck, is supporting people to get jobs and opportunities.

There are many other initiatives out there to support Indigenous economic development to help close the gap. Job Services Australia was responsible from July 2009 to June 2011 for over 80,000 placements in employment for Indigenous Australians. From July 2009 to July 2011, the Learn and Earn Legends spoken about in question time when recognising the students in the gallery—and I have one of those students, Peter Spanner from Rockhampton State high school, getting experience in Parliament House—provided support services for 2,300 Indigenous students across Queensland and monitored their progress in school and post school. These students are given individually case-managed plans and provided with a tailored destination plan. As a result the first 1,500 students have completed their first year, and the rate of students moving into further education or employment has doubled from 40 per cent to 80 per cent—a fantastic effort.

There is also a memorandum of understanding between the Australian and Queensland governments and my old employer, the Queensland Resources Council. The Australian and Queensland governments and QRC have entered into this tripartite MOU to increase employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people in the mining industry. The Queensland Resources Council looks after gas, coal and lots of mining companies in Queensland. The Australian government, through the Indigenous Employment Program, has committed $200,000 to the initiative. The Queensland government has also committed $200,000 and QRC has committed $140,000 plus $60,000 to provide research support through the Centre for Social Responsibility and Mining at the University of Queensland. There are significant labour and skills shortages in the mining regions of Queensland and this MOU is an invaluable opportunity to provide Indigenous job seekers with the skills they need to pursue employment in the booming mining industry. I commend the federal and state governments, and I particularly commend Michael Roche, CEO of the Queensland Resources Council, and his staff and the board for this initiative. I look forward to hearing from Michael Roche about the results.

We are also increasing Indigenous employment across the Commonwealth Public Sector, so we are putting our money where our mouth is. All states and territories in the Commonwealth have agreed to the national target of 2.6 per cent by 2015. The Commonwealth has set a target of 2.7 per cent for itself. Unfortunately Indigenous employment in the Commonwealth Public Sector is only 2.2 per cent, so I look forward to the 2.7 per cent target being met by 2015.

There is also the Indigenous Youth Career Pathways program, where we are providing $50 million over four years for 6,400 school based traineeships. The program will commence from the start of 2012 and focus on school based traineeships and support activities for years 11 and 12—and in some circumstances year 10—Indigenous students in targeted high schools across the country. I think back to my high school in rural Queensland where too many of my Indigenous friends who were incredibly talented and smart did not have the support and the role models to find a job that might have taken them out of that country town. This program will provide young people with personal mentoring and case management to help them deal with the issues that face young people and to make the transition from school to work. It will also be available to support other Indigenous students, including students from year 7 onwards, to stay at school and then transition into a school based traineeship or further education or a job. Another example is Woolworths in South Australia partnering with the Australian government and the South Australian government to deliver 300 new employment and training opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There are lots of opportunities around Australia to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in finding work; this legislation is one small part of it. As part of the apology, Mr Rudd said:

… there comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time. That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nation’s soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia.

So here we are in the 43rd Parliament continuing that work. I am sure that this legislation before the chamber is a part of that new chapter and I commend it to the House.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. I recognise the words of the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, who said that we have to understand from where we come. In my maiden speech I referred to Randal Ross from Red Dust Healing in Townsville, who does exactly that: to figure out where you are, you have to know where you have come from. He takes it back all the way to hunter-gatherer times and uses the example of the American Indians, the way they have come forward and the way that they have treated their own history. So I acknowledge those words.

This bill amends the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 with some minor changes related to governance and business arrangements established by that act. This includes, in the first schedule of the bill, changing the title of several general managers to chief executive officer in recognition of the changing nature of their roles, allowing information held by Indigenous Business Australia to be disclosed where appropriate and removing references to the availability of review for two Aboriginal Hostels Ltd schemes which are no longer in place. For someone who has lived his life making sure that his title is as generic as humanly possible, I find that people stickling for titles like chief executive officer, general manager and chief general manager to be for business cards alone. However, if this brings them into line with other organisations then all the better.

I support these undertakings. I recognise that the title of chief executive officer will bring about consistency for a number of similar roles and will offer the nominal recognition necessary to attract quality applicants who have held a chief executive officer position on equivalent authorities. For that reason, as I stated, while I do not put a lot of stock into actual titles, I understand that you cannot go from being a chief executive officer of one organisation to a general manager of another and think that it is a promotion.

One of the important parts of this legislation that I would like to acknowledge is the changes being made to secrecy provisions for Indigenous Business Australia. These are very important. There are certainly sensitivities regarding the information IBA obtains as part of its work, and while it must exercise the level of discretion expected by its clients it must also be able to work with government agencies to allow for the effective delivery of Indigenous affairs policy. These changes will allow this to happen. Finally, the removal of the references relating to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd is an appropriate tidying up of the act where it references the now defunct schemes. Let us get rid of them entirely. I support that as well.

That is, however, where my support finishes. I do not support the second schedule of the bill, which proposes that the minister be able to delegate the authority to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services. The member for Moreton said this is minor legislation, but I respectfully disagree. This is entirely tied up with the minister being run by a department, it is tying it up with red tape and it lacks the respect and the independence for the organisation and the independence of the office of a minister of the Crown.

Of course it is expected that the people holding these positions will at some point be away from those positions for a prolonged period. It happens in every organisation no matter the colour of your skin. Of course it is necessary that a temporary substitute should be found when this is the case, to ensure that the respective offices can continue to deliver the services to Indigenous people that they are tasked with. But why does the government think that the current procedure, in which the minister appoints an acting replacement, is such an onerous burden that it feels the need to make a change? It is no onerous task for a minister to make that appointment as opposed to deferring responsibility to the department and removing one more independent piece of that responsibility.

Additionally, there is a vital need to maintain separation of these positions from the department whose responsibility it is to deliver these services. Already the government has let the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs slowly absorb both the positions, compromising the ability of the people assigned to them to initiate and drive unbiased reform. If we allow the minister to give the department the power of appointing these positions, it will just further muddy the waters of independence from the department that we must ensure is maintained. For this reason I support the amendment that the coalition has put forward to remove schedule 2 entirely.

While speaking about Indigenous organisations and their management, I would like to mention the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Services, an organisation in my electorate that delivers culturally appropriate health care to Indigenous members of the Townsville community. I am very lucky that my electorate also encompasses Palm Island. As a regional centre we have a fantastic hospital in Townsville and fantastic health services, and we act as a base for the entire region from as far north as the tip of the Cape and Thursday Island, west to Mount Isa, through all the Gulf country and down as far as Rockhampton. I have previously raised concerns of mismanagement and inappropriate behaviour in the way TAIHS has been run. These allegations are not new and were not new when I raised them. They were first raised in this House by the previous member for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay. I have tried unsuccessfully to work with the then board in trying to manage change and investigate reports of mismanagement. The Townsville community has come together and highlighted instances of apparent waste, mismanagement, and possible corruption in the running of a number of organisations. It will be to this government's eternal shame that these cries, emitted by those in our community in greatest need, went unheeded. Recently, acting on a report in the Townsville Bulletin newspaper, the Queensland Department of Communities appointed a funding administrator to TAIHS. From there the administration, including the CEO and the managing director, has been removed. An open invitation to rejoin TAIHS has been enthusiastically received. This organisation, which is so important to my community, was down to 23 members, all of whom were part of one family. This government has sat there and listened and watched this happen since 2007. I demand—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. Nothing has happened in this organisation since 2007.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will cease interjecting.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have no idea.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have every idea. On behalf of the local Townsville Aboriginal and Islander population we have demanded that this government investigate the practices of every Indigenous organisation in which the Ross and Akee families have held board positions. That has been the case since 2007. Anything less than that is an insult, not only to the Aboriginal and Islander peoples of North Queensland but to the taxpaying public of all colours and ethnicity. I would also like to praise the efforts of the community and the call for a community election for all board positions. We must find a chain of command which is economically literate as well as being culturally sensitive, but the former must come first.

When I talk to Indigenous people across my electorate, both on the mainland and on Palm Island, the message I get from them is that they do not want handouts. They do not want to live off welfare. They want opportunities. They want to be given the chance to get jobs, to open small businesses, to support themselves. Indigenous Business Australia is about helping our First Australians work towards this goal. But it is also a reminder that the answer to issues in the Indigenous community is not simply to throw money at the problem.

As the member for Blair was saying earlier, no government has covered itself in glory when it comes to dealing with our Aboriginal and Islander people. Too much money is being caught on the way to the people it is supposed to help and not enough is reaching them. I commend Townsville's Indigenous community for speaking out on their concerns with TAIHS and working towards a solution to the problem. TAIHS was once a great organisation and it can be so again. We must attack all organisations the same way to ensure that the public has confidence in management and that it is not a gravy train for the few, but a helping hand for the many.

That is what the people of Townsville and North Queensland are crying out for when it comes to Aboriginal and Islander assistance. They need to make sure that it is being taken care of correctly and that it is being maintained properly, because sooner or later someone is going to say, 'Enough is enough,' and they will pull up the drawbridge and no-one will get any funding whatsoever. We need to make sure that funds are getting through to the right people for the right reasons at the right time.

Reform of the way we provide services to Indigenous people is needed to ensure that they are getting from the government what they need to be financially independent and to close the gap. Whether it is by investigating corruption allegations in Townsville or by ensuring that high-level Indigenous positions are kept separate from government departments to avoid compromise, we must keep pursuing the goal of an efficient and transparent delivery of Indigenous policy. This bill does the right thing in parts, but for its failure in others I support the coalition's amendment to it. I thank the House.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking in support of the Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011, I would like to make a few points and then make some general comments about something that I am involved in in this area. Firstly, the bill makes minor governance and business changes for bodies within the Indigenous affairs portfolio, including the IBA, Indigenous Business Australia, and AHL, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. It is important that organisations that are supporting the government's and the community's efforts in closing the gap are able to operate efficiently.

I will make a few points about what the IBA and AHL do. IBA is a statutory authority. It was established under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act—the ATSI Act 2005. It is creating opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to facilitate them to procure or build assets. It is about wealth as well. Home ownership is an important step in economic independence. It is fundamentally important and IBA provides access to affordable home loans for eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

I am told that since 1975 IBA has assisted over 14,000 families into home ownership. That is a good thing. It is estimated to have generated a massive $1.43 billion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wealth. It has also approved 363 new housing loans in 2009-10, with a total value of some $82.2 million, with 92 per cent of these loans going to first home buyers. That is also a good thing. IBA is charged to help eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to establish, acquire and grow businesses by providing business support services and business finance. I know some people who have been helped directly through that process.

Aboriginal Hostels Ltd provide temporary hostel accommodation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australia to enable them to access education, employment, health and other services. And they do more than that—much more. They operate a range of hostels and other programs around Australia. In speaking broadly about the Indigenous affairs portfolio area and also to these amendments, I would like to talk about a national conversation on constitutional recognition that I am involved in. We know that late last year the Prime Minister appointed a 20-member panel. One of its primary terms of reference was, among other things, to lead a national conversation on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples could be recognised in the Australian Constitution. It is now a 22-member panel, as the panel had the power to co-opt two more members.

As a panel member, my job is to talk with as many people as I can, as the panel explores ways to recognise in our Constitution the culture, heritage, history and great contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Included on the panel are community leaders, legal experts—which I am glad to have on the panel—and four members of parliament. The members of parliament are me, Ken Wyatt, Rob Oakeshott and Rachel Siewert. I know I am not supposed to name them, but the four honourable members are on this panel to broadly represent the multipartisan views of the parliament and the electorate, and we work that way. Eleven members of our panel are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. The panel has multiparty support, and the Australian government, the opposition, the Australian Greens and the Independent members of the federal parliament have given in-principle support to recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.

The panel has been travelling across the country to every state and territory, to urban, regional and remote areas, to speak directly to as many people as possible. There have been over 200 consultations Australia-wide. People always want the panel members to come back because, once the members are in the community talking with and listening to the community, having that conversation, a whole lot of questions come out of it and people raise a whole lot of issues that are not necessarily about constitutional recognition. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people say, 'This is a really nice opportunity to have a conversation about some of the issues that concern us and, yes, we are very interested in this issue of constitutional recognition.'

We are asking Australians to think about constitutional change and to put their views to the panel. Over the last few weeks, in my area two consultations took place, one in Grafton and one in Lismore, which were really well attended. The way that we work is to talk with local community leaders and meet with the mayors in various places, to have a roundtable with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and then to have a public meeting. That format has been working very well; everybody gets to have their say.

Before the panel embarked on the round of consultations, they released a discussion paper, and that was the starting point for the national consultation. It can be found on our website, which is www.youmeunity.org.au. The paper sets out background information about the Constitution and how the Constitution can be changed, through rigorous and exacting processes, and the potential benefits for all Australians from Constitutional recognition. It also explores possible ideas for constitutional recognition that are discussed and developed during the panel's community consultations. The ideas for constitutional change referred to were just the starting point for consultations to gather the views of the Australian people.

The panel has not agreed to or endorsed any ideas on constitutional recognition but has put in a paper some of the ideas that have come from the community. It does not endorse them but uses them as a point of conversation. The panel will carefully consider all ideas for recognition over the course of consultations.

What the panel did do was agree on four principles that guide our consideration of how we approach the conversation, the consultations and the ideas put before the panel. The first principle is to contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation, and I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that. The second is to be of benefit to and accord with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Again, I cannot see any disagreement with that, because it involves looking at recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. The third is to be capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians, from across the political and social spectrums. Again, I cannot see anybody disagreeing with that, because we know that for constitutional change to happen it has to happen as a process of referendum, and we know the history of referendums in Australia. Referendums are successful because they put an idea before the Australian people for endorsement and, if the idea has broad political and social support from all the political and social spectrums, then it stands a good chance of being supported.

The fourth principle was that it must be technically and legally sound. That presents the panel with some challenges in looking at what is technically and legally sound when you come to looking at the Constitution. There are many minds turning themselves to this question, and there are people on the panel who have wonderful expertise and backgrounds in this area. We are drawing from a broad group of Australians and experts in that area on that particular issue. These broad principles are guiding the thinking but, beyond that, there is—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue when the debate is resumed.