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

The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Act 1999 to enable state and territory agencies such as the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal in the Northern Territory to trigger income management through referrals. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill also amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to enable the minister to designate states, territories and areas in which income management can be implemented. This in effect provides the government the necessary flexibility for the operation of income management in the five trial sites announced in the 2010-11 budget.

Protecting the welfare of Indigenous children—indeed, all Australian children—is the fundamental responsibility of any government. When intervention is required to protect children, to respond to threats against children, the government must be ready, willing and able to step in and protect those most vulnerable in our society.

The change of government in 2007 was not a good thing for the people of the Northern Territory. In fact it would be the hallmark of a policy shift that has been detrimental to Territorians, particularly Indigenous Australians. Labor decided to smash the coalition's commitment to doing what was right and what was needed in the Northern Territory, namely, the emergency response. The ideological pursuit of opposition to the Northern Territory intervention caused widespread collateral damage and undid the good work of the former coalition government. Labor through their various incarnations, firstly, the Rudd government and now the Gillard government, are opposed to real welfare reform. They are opposed to promoting measures that will actually help not burden the people concerned. This minister says she not only really believes in reform, in change, in helping people in the Northern Territory, and indeed all Australians, but she proclaims the urgency of this bill, all the while having fallen asleep at the policy wheel.

The other side were vocal in criticising income management. Now they profess it is an important part of our welfare system. The government is now picking winners. It is okay, for example, to have this in the Northern Territory but not in the minister's electorate. It is okay for the government-nominated trial states but not in the Treasurer's or the Prime Minister's electorates. If it is good enough for parts of Australia, for some Australians, we on this side say that it is good enough for all Australians.

This government has now had an epiphany that it should somehow work hand in hand with other agencies, with state and territory agencies such as the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. My congratulations to the Gillard Labor government for coming to a realisation of this and for adopting the approach that we have pursued for years. The hypocrisy of the government simply knows no bounds. This bill, however, is a welcome measure. Together with elements of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory legislation package, which I will come to shortly, the objectives are important and the coalition hopes that the desired outcomes are realised. But we will not be holding our breath. This is a government which is big on promises. It makes agreements; its leader, the Prime Minister, signs those agreements—then she rips them up. Whilst courage and conviction are not in great supply on the other side of the chamber, dysfunction and disunity are in abundance particularly today.

Suddenly the government is concerned about school attendance. Indeed, this bill seeks to amend social security legislation that underpins the Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure or SEAM. This bill will enable local tailoring of this measure to allow for greater intervention in the Northern Territory's Every Child, Every Day initiative. Combined, these measures will hopefully support greater improvements to school attendance. Moreover, under the amendment arrangements a parent may be required to attend a compulsory conference to discuss their child's school attendance and to enter into a school attendance plan. The bill mandates the parent then complies with the plan. The bill provides for parent income support payments to be suspended where a noncompliance occurs.

When the government chose to depart from the successful measures of the emergency response, they chose to ignore the inevitable consequences of this and how it would have an impact on the welfare of Indigenous children. When the Gillard government chose to water down and to soften the previous coalition government measures, they confirmed to the Australian people that they were more interested in populism than progress and they were more interested in press statements and releases than in sound public policy.

The measures enacted in this bill are another classic example from the Gillard government of a government desperate to be seen to be doing something. The coalition supports these measures, but the coalition also supports a proactive approach to welfare, not a reactive one. We support comprehensive policy development, not quick fixes designed to patch over endemic issues. The government has contributed to—indeed, has caused—many of the problems that it now proudly proclaims it will fix. This government is not taking the tough decisions. It is not providing hope, reward and opportunity to Territorians—indeed, to all Australians. The government is merely playing politics with an issue close to my heart and close to the hearts of many people on this side of the chamber.

The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs talks about income management. She proclaims how great it is. I challenge her here and now to introduce income management to the APY lands in northern South Australia. Use the powers she has right now and do something for these people in one of the most remote parts of the country. The people of the APY lands are crying out for income management, no group more so than their Women's Council that I visited a few months ago. If the government is truly committed, then order income management for the APY lands which this legislation will enable to be done.

The coalition supports these measures and, therefore, this bill. We have little confidence in the government, however, that what will be done and necessary will come to fruition. I fear they will not do. I hope that the government go some way to proving me wrong, for if for nobody else's sake it is for the sake of our brothers and sisters and their children in the Northern Territory and in places like the APY lands who have been so wilfully neglected by a government so utterly weak and incompetent, so bitterly divided and dysfunctional.

Let me turn to the other bills, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. Firstly, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill incorporates additional measures for tackling alcohol abuse by increasing the powers of the minister to suspend, modify or cancel liquor licences and individual permits issued in prescribed areas. Current legislation provides that, once the minister grants an exemption for a permit or licence to be issued, the terms, conditions and enforcement of such is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government as legislated through the Northern Territory Liquor Act. The measures also provide powers to the minister to request the Northern Territory government appoint an independent assessor to examine any licence or premises where the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a particular licensed premise anywhere in the Northern Territory is linked to substantial harm to Indigenous people.

An additional measure provides and empowers the Commonwealth minister to approve all alcohol management plans for Indigenous communities. The measures proposed in this bill are in line with the policies and measures established by the Northern Territory government. It should be noted that the Labor government has not proposed any new or additional alcohol control or management initiatives to enhance existing measures. The government has merely duplicated existing measures in order to appear to be taking a strong stance on alcohol management.

I turn to land reform. Township leasing arrangements are fundamental in facilitating private home ownership and commercial development in Aboriginal communities. The Labor government has not actively pursued this vital reform in government, with the Northern Territory Emergency Response monitoring report dated October 2011 noting:

Following feedback from the land councils on these proposals, township leasing is now being pursued as a longer term priority, unless traditional owners initiate discussions.

The Labor government have now incorporated this measure into their 10-year plan. While the coalition is supportive of this measure, it should be highlighted that this must be considered as a priority.

The bill seeks to expand measures introduced by the former coalition government's community store program where stores were assessed and outback stores were supported to enter a community in order to raise the quality and quantity of food products and reduce the prices of food and household items. All measures in these bills are to be reviewed after seven years of operation. A sunset provision of 10 years is incorporated.

While long-term behavioural change and structural change in Indigenous communities cannot be achieved overnight, allowing any government measures to run for seven years before a review sends the wrong message. It says in reality that this area is not a priority. It says the issue is not one demanding urgent attention. Labor's approach in this area lacks leadership, lacks vision and lacks any new ideas.

Pursuant to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill, an exemption is required to be granted by the minister to obtain a liquor licence or permit in an alcohol protected area. All licences and permits are then issued and regulated by the Northern Territory government through the provisions of the Northern Territory Liquor Act. This bill grants the power to the federal minister to modify, suspend or cancel liquor licences and permits. Those powers to be conferred are essentially a duplicate of the powers already vested in the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory Liquor Commissioner. Monitoring, suspending or cancelling of liquor licences and permits is currently the responsibility of the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory Liquor Commission. Any intervention in this area by the federal minister will, therefore, lead to duplication of effort by governments or confusion by permit holders and licensees over which minister or which regulations are in force.

The coalition amendments, circulated in my name, remove any potential confusion or duplication of effort by clearly specifying when and how the federal minister may act. The amendments, if adopted, would require that prior to issuing a determination to modify, suspend or cancel a liquor licence or permit the minister must first write to the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory Liquor Commission setting out the issue and the proposed action. The Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory Liquor Commissioner must then respond in writing within the specified consultation period with any comments or actions that they consider appropriate. The amendments require that the federal minister must have regard to those comments prior to making any determination.

These amendments ensure that any federal intervention in the management of the Northern Territory Liquor Act does not duplicate or complicate the legislation of the Northern Territory or actions of the Territory government. The amendments reserve the right of the federal minister to make a determination where the Northern Territory government is unable or fails to take appropriate action to address harm caused by alcohol abuse. I therefore commend the coalition amendments to the House.

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

I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and cognate bills. Firstly, I recognise and applaud the work of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for working with a commitment and a will to consult and to improve people's lives in an area that is not an easy area to legislate for. That is what it is about, but it is not always easy to achieve when we are dealing with laws in this place. The minister has put a lot of time and both intellectual and physical effort into achieving that. I start by commending her for that work.

I listened to the member for Menzies giving his contribution. I reject the notion that the government is playing politics on this. That is nonsense. This legislation is about people's lives. It is an area that has challenged all governments. I reject outright the member's glib words, which can be thrown around so easily. There was a lot of consultation. As with any consultation, some people said they were not consulted enough. The reality is for this legislation meetings were held in more than 100 communities and town camps, together with public meetings in major towns. There were hundreds of discussions with individuals, families and other groups across the Northern Territory. Those meetings were held from the end of June to mid-August 2011. The consultations were overseen by the independent Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre of Australia. The centre's assessment was that the consultations were fair, open and accountable. What more could you ask for? At the end of any consultation, having such a report done by an independent body means that something was done right.

In the consultations, Aboriginal people said that getting more children to school, increasing the number of Aboriginal people in local jobs, improving housing and reducing alcohol related harm were top priorities. Indeed, they are top priorities for communities across our nation. They are priorities that Aboriginal people identified in these consultations for which meetings took place regularly over several months. They rightly want those things. There were meetings with the Northern Territory government's Chief Minister and other ministers and officials working to develop a forward-looking policy approach. The legislation had to align with the range of reforms the Northern Territory government is taking to lift school attendance, tackle alcohol abuse and improve housing. The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory package of bills is one element in the Australian government's continued commitment to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

Turning to alcohol, the legislation provides that the Northern Territory Emergency Response alcohol restrictions be continued and strengthened. It also provides that alcohol management plans established by local communities be directed at minimising alcohol related harm. Whilst this is about Aboriginal communities, in looking at these alcohol management plans, something may be gained by all of us. Alcohol does contribute to a lot of harm across Australian society and in communities. Where an alcohol management plan is approved and in place, consideration will be given to lifting the restrictions under the Stronger Futures legislation. If restrictions are lifted, the Northern Territory Liquor Act will apply, including for enforcement. But where communities want to retain the Stronger Futures restrictions, they will be able to do so.

The legislation also provides for the Commonwealth to require the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to provide to the Commonwealth minister reports on levels of alcohol related harm and the impact of policy measures in the Territory. From the government's perspective, being able to get the information needed to make good decisions in the future is particularly important to knowing how we are tracking and to honing the policy settings to achieve better outcomes. That is what it is about: achieving better outcomes. The legislation also provides for a joint Commonwealth-Northern Territory review to be conducted in two years from commencement of the legislation. The review will examine the impact of the legislation and the Territory's strategies to address alcohol related harm. This will allow both governments to continue working together to make progress.

Another key feature of the package is that there is a clear commitment from the Australian government to negotiating voluntary long-term leases. The government will not be extending the compulsory five-year leases acquired under the original NTER legislation. As a separate issue, the legislation provides the Australian government with the ability to address land tenure restrictions in Northern Territory legislation. The aim is to enable the Aboriginal landholders of town camps and community living areas to have the opportunity to make use of their land for a broader range of purposes, including economic development and private home ownership, which are really important. There are also key review and sunset provisions in the legislation.

In closing, I would like to make a few points. I have here a copy of a statement that came out of website of the Australian Human Rights Commission. There are comments from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda. I would like to quote a couple of them because they are quite telling and, coming from someone such as Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda, it is a key view and an important view from a key person. Commissioner Gooda said:

I call on Parliament to work constructively in a bipartisan way to address the issues confronting our communities in the Northern Territory.

I hope that bipartisanship is a key feature of this package of legislation because we owe it to people to turn our minds to working in the best and most constructive way we can. To quote Commissioner Gooda further, he says:

… every child has the right to be educated. We need to make sure we provide every opportunity for this to happen. It’s critical for our kids to attend school.

I cannot see anyone in this place disagreeing with that statement. He went on to say:

The implementation of any proposed measures under the Stronger Futures Bills, such as school attendance and alcohol management, must be done in a culturally safe and culturally secure way.

I agree with the commissioner in that regard.

I would like to say that, having spent the last year being part of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians, as it was called, I probably had to turn my mind a lot more to some of the issues in the legislation than some other members might have had to. I note that I served on that panel with the honourable member for Hasluck, who is sitting ready to speak in this debate as I expected him to. It was a good experience for all sorts of reasons, but one of them was that it also challenged some of the views I had about ways we could achieve better outcomes and help in that area. Even though it was on constitutional recognition, all the other issues were still brought up. As the honourable member for Hasluck would know, it was at times challenging to listen to such forceful people—well-published people with strong, compelling and known views. It was an enriching experience that certainly helped me better understand—beyond the issue of constitutional recognition—and to bring that understanding into this place.

I also thank the minister and Prime Minister for having given me the opportunity to serve on that panel. I will close there. I do not think my voice will hold out much longer. I have been challenged with laryngitis but was listed to speak. I thought it was important to do so today. I will leave it at that.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011. I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Page because I think she made a very salient point in noting the fact that a learning process occurred for her through our interactions with some of the Indigenous leadership who sat around that table. But there were not only Indigenous people; there were non-Indigenous people whose contributions have been significant to the debates over probably the last decade. There are many others who, in the past, also contributed to some of the direction setting that has occurred in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

This bill proposes some key reforms that I think are fundamental not only to the shift in the way that services are delivered but also to creating the opportunities for people within those Northern Territory communities to become part players within the process of the reform. The next stage is the part that concerns me—that is, the red tape that applies in the way of regulation and guidelines. It is there that the intent of parliaments and ministers becomes murky, with the interpretation and application of the fairly broad initiatives within this. If we do anything at all—if we want to make a difference—we have to involve Aboriginal communities as equal partners in the process of reform and change. They have to be able to sit in that process and have access to information and knowledge that enables them to make informed consent decisions collaboratively with the senior bureaucrats who will be sitting with them. I note the Senate is doing a series of consultations, and it is a pity this consultation is occurring after this bill has been introduced into the chamber. I would have preferred to have argued that we consult first and then frame the legislation so that we had a process embedded that would require government agencies, in working through and implementing these solutions, to be imbued with the mindset of those who deliver.

Change through legislation does not occur easily. There is always a time lag. But anywhere you have an equal basis of decision making—and where you contribute to the debate through the way that you shape and form your own aspirations and so contribute to the direction setting of the legislation—it is much more enduring and effective. I commend the minister for focusing on some key areas, particularly the alcohol and substance abuse element. Alcohol, taken in moderation by any individual, is a good relaxing agent; it enables you to lose some of those inhibitions and at least have conversations. But the challenge is when it becomes a destructive habit that harms and ruins families and communities, so I would certainly support those measures.

On land issues, the debate in this country has never before gone to the extent that we are taking it now—where the consultation involves talking about the subdivision of Aboriginal lands to enable families to build homes of their own in the communities where they have lived for some time. In fact, what we have done—and all governments have done this—is enter into housing programs, put them in place and then expect change to occur. But we have to remember that we have here the oldest living culture which has never really lost many of the threads and elements that have been significant and important to it. In that context, change does bring conflict. Change also brings about disproportion in the way in which engagement and planning occur. I think the cultural practices that have long prevailed and have at times been used as a reason not to proceed should never prevent what needs to happen—and that is that people should sit face to face, work through the issues and reach real solutions that make effective and efficient use of the resources that Commonwealth, state and territory governments provide, in the context of the change being mooted.

I would also urge very strongly that the provisions in the legislation to do with alcohol and controls around the distribution of alcohol have built into them a better evaluation process. When we implement a framework for change to reduce the abuse of alcohol and a process which we hope will significantly improve the outcomes, we need to evaluate the things that work and ensure that people within a community can use best practice to determine how effective their community is in taking forward measures that will make a difference.

In reading the bill I was quite heartened by the fact that there are some constructive aspects to it. The enforcement of food security has always been a concern to me, given what I have witnessed over a long period of time. I know from working in the health area that you try to encourage community stores to provide a nutritious and balanced range of foods, but you also try to encourage community stores to be effective in providing an avenue for food on a regular basis. Often I have read stories about or been involved in discussions about a community store having collapsed because the manager has had problems—and the community has then had to struggle.

I think alcohol and housing, the community land approach, and food security and community stores are three critical areas that for some time have languished. Let me say that from a bipartisan perspective, in fact in this House from a tripartisan perspective, the approach to these is a common one and there is that support. So I anticipate that if we do this well we will see the types of changes we all have argued for. I have listened to Noel Pearson, Mick Gooda and many other leaders around this country who have argued for reform that will ensure the security of pathways not only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but for families and children—so that we break the nexus with ills and dysfunction and we strengthen the role of the family within the community. I see elements of that in this legislation if it is implemented in concert and in partnership.

I referred earlier to informed consent decision making. I think that is one of the things that is missing in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. What we tend to do is establish the legislation, develop the programs—or cobble together many of the existing programs—and look at how we can better deliver them given the circumstances. While the intent is good and it is driven from Canberra, it nevertheless is an imposition of a framework on top of people whose daily lives are often influenced by those who make decisions from afar.

Let me reflect back to the Reformation period in the history of world civilisation. When people had access to knowledge and information, they were then able to influence their own destinies and become strong by becoming a voice in that process. I think we as Australian governments over the periods to come have to adopt a different approach. In the apology the former Prime Minister said, 'If things aren't working then let's look at alternative solutions, let's look at different ways of doing business.' I would hope that those elements within this bill are considered in that context because I can see that, at the end of a 10-year moratorium, for a couple of the areas that are referred to, change will not be as significant as we would have hoped.

No community, no family and no individual have really progressed when you provide a nanny state framework. If we empower them to become the shapers of their own destiny, if we empower them to be part of an equal decision-making process and if we give them the capacity to change their own circumstances while providing support from the expertise of the agencies that prevail at both Commonwealth and state levels, I think we will see real and meaningful change. I am optimistic that there are many elements of this bill that will achieve that, and that is aided by the inclusion of other matters such as information about criminal history. I can take people to reports in which the criminal history of some individuals running Aboriginal communities or running community stores has not been a factor that has helped any community at all.

I think the other thing we have the opportunity to do is to build the human capacity of those within communities to contribute to the shaping of what is delivered within their community through this process. It is the front end, in many aspects, to significant reforms that can occur within education and health. The only thing that I find slightly distracting is when we apply a whole-of-community approach to income management. Let me say that there are people within those communities whose income management skills are equal to those of any other person who lives in this country. I would rather see us give more focus to providing some upstream work around the understanding of financial literacy, budgetary processes and budgeting, and costs—and then working that through.

I do not resile from the fact that this legislation will support those who have aspirations for their children, those who want the circumstances in which their families live and reside to be better than what they currently are, those who want to provide the pathways to a home environment in which there is the support and love that leads to educational opportunities and leads to a place where their children feel safe and comfortable—where alcohol is not a factor in the abuse that some experience. This bill will provide the legislative framework that will enable some of the change that is needed.

I ask the minister to give serious consideration in the implementation process to her agencies looking at the way in which state, territory and Commonwealth senior public officers negotiate and work with communities. I also ask the minister to consider the outcome of the detailed consultations that will occur in the Senate inquiry—what they bring back in the messages from Aboriginal communities. I have seen in the media reports that there is some anger about the lack of consultation. There is an expression that is often used in Aboriginal communities of 'seagulls' who fly in and fly out but who never leave a solution. They talk and then disappear. I would hope that we do not contribute to that concept in the implementation of the programs that support this bill.

I do support the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011. I think that we have the opportunity, with a tripartisan approach, to make an incredible difference in working far more effectively with the Northern Territory government and, certainly, far more effectively with Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to oppose the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011. We oppose the bill, not because we do not support stronger futures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but because we do.

We support stronger futures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as we do for all Australians, not just in the Northern Territory but across the country. But stronger futures for Australia must be underpinned by equality and respect for our first peoples. This bill is not underpinned by equality or respect. It is an extension of the top-down, punitive, discriminatory and flawed Northern Territory intervention initiated by the Howard government and perpetuated by this Labor government. It is only a few weeks since the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians presented their report recommending a series of changes to our Constitution which would go some way to righting the wrongs of the past and to recognising Indigenous Australians. Such a referendum would further challenge the false and damaging assumption that Australia was a nation born from a land devoid of people when instead we are a country first cared for by one of the world's oldest living cultures. Constitutional recognition would be another step towards healing this shameful legacy.

It was only last week that we as a nation had an opportunity to reflect on the fourth anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations, and still so much needs to be done to bring about true reconciliation in this country. We need to match the words of the apology with actions that deliver equality. This bill, however, is yet another example of the government's inability to extend the commitment to recognition, reconciliation and equality across its legislative agenda.

With this bill, the government is seeking to continue and expand the discriminatory measures introduced by the Howard government's Northern Territory intervention. It is an intervention which has failed to put in place measures that genuinely overcome disadvantage, an intervention which has failed to deliver better overall outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and an intervention which will fail to deliver stronger futures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

One look at the Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory Monitoring Report shows how much work there is still to do: school attendance has declined since 2009; child hospitalisation rates have increased; incarceration rates continue to rise, with Indigenous people more than 17 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous people in 2008; and incidences of personal harm and suicide have doubled since 2007. There is no evidence that any positive changes in education and employment have come from this flawed intervention.

The use of spin to justify poor policies will remain a necessity until the approach in the Northern Territory changes. I am a big believer in the principle that you do not make people's lives better by taking away their rights. This expansion adheres to the long-held and ultimately flawed principle that punishing people will lead to changes in behaviour. These old approaches are typified by negative measures such as income management and the suspension of welfare payments, which are justified with the use of reports that are all too often derived from perfunctory consultations by government employed outsiders and framed to meet a predetermined outcome. They generally lack the quantitative rigour which is necessary.

Stronger Futures consultations have come under fire for poor process and reporting. Analysis based on independent recordings of the consultations reveals striking discrepancies between opinions expressed by communities and the view of opinions present in the report. A top-down intervention is unnecessary for effecting change in the community, and other ideas proposed by the communities themselves are being ignored by the consultation process.

The government point to some areas they say have improved, such as personal and community safety, to justify a continuation of the intervention. An increased feeling of safety is hardly surprising given that some policies associated with the intervention have seen money spent on more safe houses, police and Aboriginal liaison officers. These investments obviously produce results, they improve services and they address wider community disadvantage. The key point here is that an emergency intervention, with its discrimination and punitive approach, is not needed in order to make these investments a reality.

The Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure, or SEAM program, is another example of an unnecessarily punitive policy that achieves some benefit through the elements of investment contained within it that could be achieved in other ways. SEAM is now being extended, despite the fact that DEEWR have admitted the trials could not be directly linked to educational outcomes. It was made clear in Senate estimates recently that the positive and more consistent results from SEAM are delivered through case management and personalised involvement with families rather than any measures that punish parents.

Consistently better outcomes are delivered when the primary policies focus on engagement between parents and schools. The positive investments contribute to improving school attendance. More teachers, better training, bilingual education, community involvement, better parental engagement with schools, action to address children's hearing health and more investment in case management would all deliver better outcomes than SEAM is able to. It is these suggestions that were most prevalent in the Stronger Futures consultation with communities, not a preference for punitive measures.

Despite this, money is still being funnelled into truancy measures which alienate people and take an old-fashioned, punitive approach. This approach, aimed at punishing parents, does not build the trust or partnerships that are needed or build the ability of parents to take responsibility for their child's education in positive ways. The $1.5 billion spent so far would have delivered significantly better results had it been directed to service investments and programs rather than signs, bureaucracy and income management.

These programs are extremely costly. To date, the bill for the current income management process in the Northern Territory sits at around $450 million and the policy remains one of the most criticised across the NT. The money used to income-manage people would produce far better results if it were directed to services and programs based on collaboration and community involvement and partnership.

A recent report by the Equality Rights Alliance into women's experiences of income management in the Northern Territory, funded by the government, shows that, of the 168 surveyed, 74 per cent said that the BasicsCard does not make it easier to look after their families. Most women reported that it just added difficulties and costs to paying for goods and services. The report also showed that most women surveyed had an apparent lack of understanding as to the purpose of the program or why they were on it and 70 per cent said they did not feel safer since the introduction of income management.

In their submission to the Senate inquiry on this legislation, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples highlighted the general lack of robust baseline data and evidence in support of policies initiated in the intervention. The government needs to be investing in policy measures that have solid evidence to support them, not repeating the same failed policies over and over. If we were to implement sound community based initiatives that we know are effective, that would provide communities with the ability and opportunity to control and improve their social and economic conditions—elements that are a key component of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia has endorsed.

Engagement in the Northern Territory and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must be fundamentally altered if the rights set out in the UN declaration are to be honoured. That will happen when we adopt policies that are considered and that originate from real, consultative engagement with a sound evidence base. When this occurs, a well-chosen set of statistics and a well-oiled PR machine will not be needed to justify the approach. The benefits for communities and individuals across the Northern Territory will be self-evident.

The government's stealthy expansion of income management measures is a sign they have failed to learn their lesson in the Northern Territory. In the words of Barb Shaw:

Loss of autonomy, resources and opportunities in communities is driving many people into the larger town centres. The overcrowding situation with housing has not improved. More and more Aboriginal children are being removed from families, another silent statistic. There is a deteriorating social situation in these larger towns, with crime on the increase.

The government remain unable to effectively develop and implement policies alongside communities in the Northern Territory that work. This legislation will only further entrench this, not just in the NT but now in other parts of the country as income management is extended to other states and territories to allow for the quarantining of income support payments.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must be allowed to take responsibility for their own affairs. This legislation is a step in the wrong direction and the government is missing yet another opportunity to take a new approach in the Northern Territory. Extending ineffective measures is a waste of money. Punishing parents by cutting income support flies in the face of existing knowledge and opinion, including of the government's own departments. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that by investing in community services you improve outcomes for communities and address disadvantage. The Australian Greens are committed to proactive and positive policies which deliver long-term benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and not costly punishment schemes which diminish the ability of those peoples to develop the capacity to build their own stronger futures as they define them.

The government continues to act in a way contrary to the evidence and the opinions of experts and the community. This is precisely why we have seen more than $1.5 billion spent on the intervention without seeing the necessary improvements. The Australian Greens—in particular my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who has worked tirelessly to uncover the real impacts of government policies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples—have strongly and consistently stood up to the government over the issue of the intervention. I have serious doubts about extending a program which is already operating and returning underwhelming results. That is why I will be voting against this legislation.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with great interest to the member for Melbourne. I have actually spoken to a number of Aboriginal women in the communities who receive the BasicsCard. They think it works really well for them. They know that they have guaranteed money that cannot be touched. So for them it is working quite well.

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The debate on this bill encompasses a compilation of legislation known as Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory, which includes the social security bill and other legislation amendment bills. These bills amend aspects of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, or the intervention, as it is more colloquially known, which was introduced by the Howard government in June 2007 and is subject to sunset in August this year. In essence, this bill has three focus points: to introduce various measures for the control and regulation of alcohol in protected areas of the Northern Territory; to provide the Commonwealth with powers to regulate town camps and community living areas in the Northern Territory; and to provide the Commonwealth with the power to regulate community store licences in the Northern Territory, including the power to impose conditions on licences granted to store managers and owners. In addition, this suite of bills amends the social security law underpinning the government's school enrolment and attendance measure, thus allowing for the suspension of income support to parents who fail to meet certain compliance arrangements.

Tackling alcohol abuse is a significant portion of this bill. Alcohol consumption and abuse levels are extremely high and have been identified and reported on many times as primary factors associated with child abuse, assaults, domestic violence, social dysfunction and numerous other problems plaguing Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. I acknowledge that there are critics of this bill with respect to measures directed at alcohol misuse in the Northern Territory, who indicate that without a floor price on alcohol these measures are unlikely to be successful—that is just one opinion.

Land reform is a means to provide the government with a platform to secure tenure, economic development and homeownership opportunities within Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.

The largest portion of this bill relates to food security. It has been recognised that, over time, the question of food quality has become a major issue, one that is being linked with health concerns. Part of the intervention saw the introduction of a licensing system for community stores. The Stronger Futures bills seek to expand on this original premise and extend the licensing scheme to cover all shops that are a key source of food, drink and grocery items to Indigenous communities. Having been to some of the communities prior to and during the intervention, I can say that there has been a significant change to the food that is being provided in the communities. The intervention measures have been revisited over the past four years, including a subtle rebranding to Closing the Gap, resulting in the reversal or softening of some of the original measures, including reversal of the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the removal of the process to suspend the permit system for access to Aboriginal land and the redefinition of the term 'income management' in the Social Security and other Legislation (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Act 2010.

In June 2011 the government released its discussion paper Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory, following which, between June and August, a consultative process was undertaken within the Northern Territory. The minister has said: 'There were more than 470 consultation meetings in over 100 hundred towns and communities.' The member for Melbourne suggested that consultation was not occurring—that is evidence that it was. In research as a result of the consultation and provided by an independent analysis of data relating to the intervention to September 2011, the government identified several key areas as issues requiring urgent attention. It will be not be a surprise to members to learn that school attendance and educational achievement were two of those areas, along with economic development and employment and the tackling of alcohol abuse.

The then Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, in a policy statement issued on the day that this legislation was introduced into the parliament, stated:

The Australian Government, in partnership with the Northern Territory Government, is now acting on the issues people said were the most urgent—

this was identified four years ago, but it is good that the government has come on board now and says that it is tackling it. She said it was looking at:

They are all part of the reason the intervention was introduced under John Howard. I note that the minister has also said:

The Australian Government is determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past but to work together with Aboriginal people to build stronger futures together.

I think we all want that.

This bill is another example showing that this Gillard Labor government is desperate to be seen to be doing something. While supporting the introduction of these measures, the coalition also highlights the need for a proactive approach to welfare, not a reactive one. We on this side of the House support comprehensive policy development followed up with strong management and implementation measures, not quick fixes or patches that are designed to gloss over endemic issues and that result in mismanagement, waste and a failure to achieve the desired outcomes. Too often the Gillard Labor government has tripped at the implementation stage and failed to deliver on its promises.

The intervention in the Northern Territory as introduced by the Howard government remains an issue of contention; there is no doubt about it. There is division and misunderstanding, not just among Aboriginal people, within the communities, but among their supporters and their opposition, who are broadly spread across all facets of the Northern Territory and Australian populations. As we heard, the member for Melbourne is one of those critics of the intervention. But, as I said, I have seen the results of this. While there is still a long way to go, it does seem to be working. That is why I encourage more agencies to work together to build on what has been learnt and why I encourage more people to get results. But you are only going to get that by learning the lessons of the past. Reverend Dr David Gondarra, a Northern Territory elder, is reported in an article by Amanda Midlam on the On Line Opinion webpage as saying:

The recent consultations report shows that Government has failed to take seriously our concerns and feelings. This report is simply a reflection of pre-determined policy decisions …

He goes on to say:

The Stronger Futures report has created a lot of anger and frustration due to the lack of process and the ignorant way in which the views of the people have been reported. We therefore reject this report.

However, within the same article, an Amnesty International spokesperson is reported stating that Amnesty International has:

… called on the Gillard government to move on from the mistakes of the past, warning its Stronger Futures legislation is just a re-badged NT intervention …

Further:

Amnesty International is concerned Labor hasn't done enough to remove the discriminatory aspects of the intervention in the new legislation.

In the same vein, the Northern Territory elders and community representatives group claimed the consultation report 'is simply a reflection of pre-determined policy decisions'. They say, 'This is shown clearly by the absence of any commitment to bilingual learning programs as well as the proposal to introduce welfare cuts and fines to parents of non-attending school children.' However, on the contrary, many Indigenous leaders, including Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and Bess Price—a good friend of mine—have called for a 'move forward instead of backwards' building on the measures from the intervention, accusing critics of the intervention of 'imagining an ideal Aboriginal society without any of the dysfunction that is actually suffered on the ground'.

The coalition amendments proposed by my friend and colleague the member for Menzies are designed to tweak and improve on the measures already in existence and being introduced by the Stronger Futures legislation. One such point is that relative to the power of the federal minister to modify, suspend or cancel liquor licences and permits—a power that essentially duplicates that of the Northern Territory minister and Northern Territory licensing commissioner. The coalition amendment in this area specifies that prior to issuing a determination to modify, suspend or cancel a liquor licence or permit the minister must first write to the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory Licensing Commission setting out the issue and the proposed action and that a written response be invited from the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory licensing commissioner within the specified consultation time frame, with appropriate comment or action. At this point, any decision by the federal minister must have regard to the comments and actions as advised by the Northern Territory minister and the Northern Territory licensing commissioner.

The amendments recognise the right of the federal minister to make determinations where the Northern Territory government is unable to or fails to take appropriate action to address the harm caused by alcohol abuse. The amendment in this regard clarifies when the federal minister may act. The last thing we need is more buck-passing between the state and the Commonwealth. Territorians are very parochial about the Commonwealth telling them what they need to do.

From my own experience it is very evident that the intervention, Closing the Gap or, as is being proposed, Stronger Futures for the Northern Territory are issues which will remain contentious regardless of stakeholder involvement. In talking with constituents and Aboriginal representatives, I find that many support the measures currently in place, contrary to what the member for Melbourne says. But, in fact, from my experience, many of the women particularly see the value of welfare quarantining, which enables them to know they have money available for the purchase of food, clothing and medications. It is not perfect but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Recently I spoke to a group of Indigenous mothers in the Palmerston area of my electorate. Several women volunteered for income quarantining for no other reason than to ensure they had money to spend on children in their care each fortnight, to make sure they had food and clothing. Without intent to offend, the level of education across not only the Indigenous population within my electorate is cavernous. There are those that actively engage in education systems and encourage kids from preschool through to university and beyond. On the other side of the coin, there are those dysfunctional family units, a large percentage ravaged by alcohol and drug abuse, which fail their kids by not taking the appropriate responsibility, by not seeking out a better life for them or by not, in some cases, providing basic needs.

Behavioural issues are largely as a result of alcohol and drug related activities. It is my observation that unfortunately the level of abuse increases with a falling level of education standard. This has a twofold effect. Not only does it require intervention in terms of the income quarantining in many instances, but from a generational perspective the risk of repeating and prolonging the circumstances which invoke such action remains.

Introduction of the school enrolment and attendance measures, along with many local state and Territory programs set in place to work with and adjunct to this legislation, has broadened the initiatives in place for income management. As already indicated, the coalition amendments in this area are designed to tweak and improve on this already viable program. Hopefully the result will be more kids attending school.

Within my electorate there are a number of Aboriginal communities, as I have said. As is the case across the Northern Territory and broader Australia, the residents within these communities are not static in number. Resident numbers ebb and flow with family comings and goings. Often visitors remain for long periods, and it seems to happen more when the wet season is upon us. I have been to the Bagot community a number of times. People there have told me that when visitors come it causes problems for the community, because they drink alcohol. It is an urban community and often the police do not come and police it, despite the fact that there is an alcohol prevention sign there. The police do not want to come and fine these people, who are already disadvantaged. This issue is putting pressure on the council. I encourage the community and the relevant agencies to work together to come to a solution. They need to work together to build on what we have already put in place.

I think everybody wants to make sure that this situation gets better, but there is no quick fix. The more that we learn from pilots that we have undertaken in the past and other measures, the more we can build on them for the future. All stakeholders need to work together. This is not going to be fixed overnight; it is a long process. The statistics that we have seen are encouraging, giving us cause to be positive and to work together in this area.

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

I rise to voice my support for the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. The Gillard Labor government, like the Rudd government of the 42nd Parliament, is committed to working alongside, for and with Indigenous communities to build a better future together. My first day at work in this parliament was the day the member for Griffith gave an apology to the stolen generation. It was an incredibly moving day. That was after parliament had started with the welcome to country outside the parliament for the first time in the history of Canberra. It was a great way for me to start my work in this parliament.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 has three main aims: tackling alcohol abuse, reforming land rights and promoting food security in the Top End. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs that is currently conducting an inquiry into foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, I have gained already, with the hearings that we have had, an insight into how important it is to tackle alcohol abuse throughout Australia, particularly in those communities where it is a problem, and, unfortunately, that is often Indigenous communities.

We should all be encouraged by Closing the gap—Prime Minister's report because Indigenous lives are slowly being changed and communities are slowly being transformed. As the Prime Minister said, the progress is gradual but it is progress nevertheless. They are slow and steady steps in the right direction that we need to make as a nation. We are increasing access to early childhood education for Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities and we are confident that we are on track to halve the infant mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018. Anyone who has young children knows how these dry statistics take on a completely different meaning when one think of one's own children and what it would be like to have the sort of mortality rates in our suburban areas that are being experienced in some parts of Australia. Also, NAPLAN results show that we are making good progress in halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy, and retention rates to year 12 are now nudging 50 per cent—steps in the right direction. I remember when I was a union organiser working in private schools at Wadja Wadja High School in the Woorabinda community and seeing the work that went into those communities to make sure that kids stayed at a private school and an Aboriginal community college—and other Aboriginal schools around Queensland. I commend all the teachers and teachers aides who work in these schools.

But there is still much to be done to improve education, employment and health outcomes for Indigenous Australians. There are still lessons to be learned and things we can do better, and that we must do better. The Labor government is committed to consulting fully with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory regarding the Northern Territory Emergency Response. The report into the Northern Territory intervention Stronger futures in the Northern Territory found that people continue to feel hurt at the way the Northern Territory Emergency Response was initially implemented, irrespective of the motivations for it. But the report also found that Indigenous people do want government to strengthen measures to boost school attendance, create employment opportunities—thus giving the dignity of work—reduce alcohol related violence and improve housing. This bill will help support Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and continue our efforts to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It introduces measures to tackle alcohol abuse, ensure food security in remote communities and assist economic development in town camps and community living areas.

The related bill, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011, will also make some amendments to improve the operation of restrictions on extremely violent or sexually explicit material. Alcohol abuse sadly remains one of the biggest challenges facing Indigenous communities. We know that in remote communities in the Northern Territory consumption of alcohol is 1.5 times the national level. Alcohol contributes to 30 per cent of domestic violence incidents at least, and alcohol related crime is four times the national level. This bill will enable an independent review of the effectiveness of various laws that are concerned with alcohol related harm. The joint Commonwealth-Northern Territory review is required to ensure that the laws are working together and achieving a safer and healthier community. The bill also empowers the minister to direct the Northern Territory government to appoint an assessor to investigate particular licensed premises when the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the premises are linked to substantial related harm.

The bill will also ensure that alcohol management plans put in place by local communities are more effective in reducing alcohol related harm. By working directly with communities and empowering them to develop their own plans, Indigenous communities are able to develop solutions that work for them and that are particular to their own needs. I have seen that already in the FASD inquiry where local people have come up with plans—some of them based on personalities—and in the local situations they have already achieved some success. I am confident that these measures will improve upon efforts to tackle alcohol abuse and harm in the Northern Territory.

The Stronger futures in the Northern Territory report also found improvements in food security over the last four years with a healthier range of food available in remote community stores. This builds on that success. We want to further improve access to healthy food in remote communities. The bill removes the heavy-handed approach to licensing where any non-compliance would result in a licence being revoked. Instead, this bill will introduce a daily penalty of up to $2,200. This will encourage stores to improve their performance but will not close a store altogether, with sometimes disastrous consequences and flow-on negative impacts on a community.

This bill also improves opportunities for private home ownership and economic development in Indigenous communities. The Northern Territory government has an opportunity to amend its legislation to enable Aboriginal landholders to use their land for a broader range of purposes. If the Northern Territory does not do this, the Commonwealth minister will have the power to amend Northern Territory legislation to enable the government to grant individual rights to land. Any economist or student of society would know the benefits that come from land being able to be passed down as it gains in value. It means that wealth can be passed down through generations. This will enable title holders to build their own homes and run businesses in town camps and community living areas, further empowering Indigenous communities.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 strengthens our efforts to improve school attendance. It enables the government to implement income management in five new sites in disadvantaged communities in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland—in fact, just down the road from my electorate of Moreton. Income management has proven to be a valuable tool for government to use to help to nudge families back on track.

Obviously, this is a tough and confronting area for governments to delve into. On the one hand, Australians have the right to spend their money however they so choose, as long as they are not breaking any laws. But on the other hand vulnerable Australians, particularly children, need to be able to live in houses where the rent is paid, where there is food on the table and where they have all those other fundamental rights that any decent society would agree are part of a minimum standard. When the individual rights and the group expectations are competing with each other, the government must act to find the right balance. In these communities, income management will apply to vulnerable families and individuals, including parents referred by child protection authorities, people assessed by Centrelink as being vulnerable to financial crisis or at risk of homelessness and people who volunteer for income management.

This bill also includes measures to support parents in their efforts to ensure that their children attend school. People may have their income support payment suspended if they fail to enrol their child in school or make every effort to ensure that they attend regularly. The government will provide social work and other support services to assist families. However, if they do not comply with the attendance plan or access the help available then their income support payments will be suspended. Once a person engages with the school or complies with the attendance plan then payments will be reinstated—a bit of a carrot and a little bit of stick.

In a former life, before going to the dark side and becoming a lawyer, I was a teacher for 11 years. I know the opportunities that come from education. When I see the schoolchildren who come to Canberra to have a look at democracy in progress, I think of those remote Indigenous communities that do not have these opportunities that education brings. So many people, on this side of the House particularly, have only received their opportunity in life through education.

As I said at the start of this speech, it has been four years since Kevin Rudd delivered the apology to the stolen generation. It is just about four years since my first speech. In my first speech, I talked about a lot of friends from my home town of St George. I talked about a lot of my Indigenous friends there—some of them people who I played football with—who had died. In that four years, the list of people from my hometown—relatively young people like me—who have died has got longer and longer, with people like Jockey Weatherall and Cecil Long dying. Jockey Weatherall died only last week. Cecil Long is part of the Long story of family tragedy, being the third of three brothers who I knew and played football with who have died.

Obviously, much has to be done in the Northern Territory. Much has to be done around Australia. Much has to be done by this government to ensure that we get the balance right. It is a balancing act. It is tough. There are tough decisions for government to make and we are balancing those against tough personal decisions. People make individual decisions as to how they are going to act in their communities, but obviously government needs to get the settings right. I commend the bills to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. These three bills are very important when it comes to support and wellbeing for both Indigenous and other disadvantaged groups, individuals and families across Australia. The three bills are all important bills that the coalition supports, although with some amendments.

The first bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security Administrative Act 1999. It enables income management to be triggered by referrals from state and territory agencies. It also enables a minister to specify states, territories or areas in which the vulnerable long-term welfare payment and disengaged youth management measures will apply. It allows for continuing income management if there is a change in residence, so people will not be able to up and move to escape the measures that are meant to help them.

It also gives the authority to permit a school attendance plan to be entered into with parents that may lead to the suspension of income support payments if the plan is not complied with. This sounds a very punitive measure but it is an important one and gives us a full set of tools to help young children have continuing and ongoing good quality education. However, no amount of education or attendance at school is going to help if that school has poor teaching or poor infrastructure or teachers at the school do not teach the children in a language that they can understand. I am very pleased to be part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which is currently looking at how we can make sure young Indigenous children can, when they attend school for the first time, learn in a traditional language or in Kriol. These children must be taught in an English as a second language environment so that they can also become fully competent in English.

The second bill comprises three measures tackling alcohol abuse, land reform measures and food security measures. The third bill repeals the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 and makes amendments to relevant acts. It also makes amendments to existing principle legislation as part of the government's Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory program.

I want to particularly focus on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. It enables targeted, place based income management. In determining how best to proceed with this bill, there were five locations chosen from around Australia where disadvantaged communities would trial a project that had a number of aspects and facets. One of those areas that have that pilot is the City of Greater Shepparton, which is a key part of my electorate in Murray. I have participated in the early planning for the trial introduction of Better Futures, Local Solutions: Place-based income management. I was concerned at the beginning, and I continue to be concerned, about how we are going to get an excellent outcome out of quarantining the welfare of some of our most disadvantaged individuals and young families. We are going to see this income management applying to vulnerable families and individuals from 1 July 2012. It will apply to parents referred for income management by the state child protection authorities. It will apply to people assessed by Centrelink social workers as being financially vulnerable—which could include people referred by housing authorities because they cannot pay their rent and they are in danger of becoming homeless—and it will apply to people who volunteer for income management. Income management can quarantine up to 70 per cent of their welfare payments. Clearly, this situation will require those individuals and families to have a very strong sense or understanding of financial management and how to manage on a very tiny cash budget when previously they had a larger welfare payment to spend.

This schedule makes minor legislative changes to allow these child protection vulnerable welfare payment recipient and voluntary income management measures to apply to these new populations. Why am I worried about these new measures in my city of Greater Shepparton? Greater Shepparton consists not only of the larger metropolitan area of Shepparton-Mooroopna but also of very tiny towns like Toolamba, Tatura, Dookie and others. For a start, we do not seem to have any real incentives built into the program to encourage teenage parents into education or training. For example, if you are a young parent—and I am talking about very young parents in some instances—with a young child, we are almost bereft of public transport in places like Toolamba, Tatura and Dookie. How do those young parents, who have to suddenly learn how to manage what is left of their welfare payments very differently, get to training when there is no public transport and no child care? Unfortunately, since this government has ceased to fund the occasional childcare program Take a Break, we do not have places for children whose mothers—it will typically be the mothers—must take some time to train at the Goulbourn Ovens TAFE, which is in Shepparton and is a 20- or 40-minute drive away from where they live, usually in very cheap accommodation. That cheap accommodation is usually a very long way from public transport or from child care. There is no suggestion anywhere that those particular problems are being taken into account.

There is also a lot of duplication. We already have the state government program Best Start, which supports children from birth to eight years old. The Best Start program seems to be okay and seems to have all the elements that are desired, yet now we are going to have this government's Communities for Children, which is for the cohort of birth to 12 years of age. How are these two programs going to be coordinated? Are they simply going to compete for the kids or compete for the funding that is around? It seems absurd to me. I am also very worried about what happens if a young person cannot get to their classes as part of complying with their welfare quarantining. Are there no sanctions at all? When I ask these questions locally I am told, 'Well, I am sure there will be some way to manage that when the time comes.' The time is coming very quickly and we need to sort this out very fast indeed.

There is also a very great difference between quarantining someone's welfare and giving them a BasicsCard to go to the one store in their town or community. In a very remote community you have only one place to go to buy your food, but in a place like Shepparton-Mooroopna there are literally scores of food-selling outlets. They range from big supermarkets, to small supermarkets, to farmers markets where a lot of our local people now go. These farmers markets, where they can buy the cheapest, freshest food for cash, are only on weekends or every second weekend or so. Are these welfare quarantined individuals with their BasicsCard going to be able to take advantage of these farmers markets and buy fresh produce cheaply? Will they somehow be able to negotiate with the stallholder in advance and said, 'Look, I've got this piece of plastic from the Commonwealth; will you honour it?' This is a problem. I have been asking the coordinators at Centrelink how they are going to handle this. What have they planned and what are they doing, given that the commencement of this project is fast approaching? They tell me: 'Well, someone else is working on that. We think it will be okay, but of course this is new territory and we cannot be sure. We do not know how many stores are going to cooperate yet. We just think it will all be okay in the end.' I am very concerned about our young teenage parents with this BasicsCard. How are they going to manage the business of getting good value for money? I do not want them to be stigmatised either when they queue up in the checkout line with their BasicsCard, which will soon become known for what it really is and what it implies.

I am also concerned about the planning and the very strong possibility of duplication. We have layer upon layer of advisory committees, reference panels and the like associated with this project in the City of Greater Shepparton. I am aware of at least three layers of advisory panels and NGOs who are already getting together, supplemented by new players. There are so many of these layers and they are so complex that there is now to be a very well paid facilitator—a coordinator—of these layers of advice and panels so that Centrelink can move forward with this program. I would rather that very well paid facilitator was directly engaged with assisting the young people who will be seeing their welfare quarantined than supporting a brand-new bureaucratic structure of the same old people attending the same sorts of places and going through the same stale agendas month after month, talking to each other as they do at so many other venues. I wish that we could cut through all of that and focus very much on the individuals on the ground with something that is really going to work for them. Let me move on to talk about the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011. Much of these bills is focused on alcohol abuse and the incredible destruction that alcohol makes happen in small and large communities of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. Existing alcohol protections will be preserved in alcohol protected areas, with additional provisions that enable the geographic areas covered by these measures to evolve or change over time according to the needs of local people.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member will have the opportunity of continuing her remarks.