Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I appreciate receiving the call. Elevating the status of women is both a test of our national character and a building block for national prosperity. Australian women continue to face barriers to full, fair and equal access to economic opportunities in the workforce, in their lifetime earnings and in their retirement savings. The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that Australian women are currently earning 17.3 per cent less than men, earning on average $277.70 per week less than men. This gap has barely moved for more than over two decades. Westpac has put the dollar cost of this gender pay gap at $123.4 billion per year. Australian women's earnings peak on average at age 31 when average full-time earnings are about $75,000. By contrast, men's earnings peak closer to age 40 when average earnings have climbed to $91,000.

The percentage of Australian women in full-time paid work is roughly half that of men and has improved by just six percentage points in the past 40 years. It is still the case that only 36.5 per cent of women are in paid full-time work. The underemployment rate for women aged 35 to 44 is more than double the rate for men the same age. Around 14.6 per cent of women in this age group want to work more hours but cannot get them. These facts help to explain why Australian women have an average of $90,000 less in superannuation when they retire and why older women represent one of the fastest-growing cohorts experiencing homelessness. I met one of those women myself last weekend—a woman who was working who could not get enough hours. She was 50, she was divorced and she was couch surfing. It was an absolute shame in a rich country like ours.

The Grattan Institute estimates that, if Australia had the same female workforce participation rate as Canada, Australia's GDP would be about $25 billion higher. The G20 has acknowledged that one of the world's most significant barriers to global economic growth is the persistently low level of women's participation in the workforce compared with men. While hosting the G20 conference in my home town of Brisbane in 2014, this government committed to the G20 target to reduce the gap between women and men's workforce participation rates by 25 per cent by 2025. Accordingly, I ask the minister to respond to some questions about how we are going to meet this gender participation target. To do so, it should be noted that we need to create an additional 300,000 jobs for women.

So I ask the minister: is the government on track to reach the G20 women's workforce participation target? Which agencies are tracking progress toward this target? What arrangements have been put in place to report on this progress to government, parliament and the wider community? What specific steps has the government taken to advance this goal? Why has the government delayed proposed reforms to childcare arrangements which disproportionately benefit women seeking to enter or re-enter the paid workforce?

The government has pitched parts of its superannuation package, particularly the catch-up concessional contributions measure, as helping women achieve a more secure retirement. What evidence or analysis does the government have that women will be the primary beneficiaries of this measure and not well-off men? Is it correct that Treasury has not actually conducted this analysis and has no idea if this will improve lifetime superannuation savings for the majority of women? How many women represented the coalition parties in the 44th Parliament? How many women do so in the 45th Parliament? Could the minister explain how having the lowest number of women sitting on the government benches since 1993—the year that I was in grade 11 at high school—demonstrates a commitment to advancing the participation of women in the economic, social and political life of this country? Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the question. You raise an obviously very important point about women's participation in the workforce and, more broadly, about our policy in this area. It is an issue close to my heart because I have encouraged my wife to continue working throughout my career and hers. She continues to work to this day, and that has been a wonderful thing for both of us. So, for me, this is a very real issue. It is a very practical issue, and it is one that I have been passionate about for a long while.

Under Australia's G20 presidency, as the member pointed out, leaders agreed to a goal of reducing the gender gap in participation rates by 25 per cent by 2025. That means, as you pointed out, an additional 200,000 women in the Australian labour force. Analysis by Goldman Sachs estimates that closing the gap in participation rates could boost Australia's GDP by about 13 per cent. So this is a very real issue and, for the younger generation of Australians coming through now, I think this is one that we face as a practical issue every day. The government is taking action to boost women's workforce participation. It was a very broad-ranging question, so I will seek to cover off on the key points here.

Firstly, we are doing it by designing an affordable, accessible and flexible childcare system through the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. That is a very important reform. It is one that we have spent a lot of time on and done a lot of work on to make sure we structure it in a way that is actually going to provide that encouragement for participation rates that we know is not just good for women—obviously, that is absolutely paramount—but good for everybody, because it strengthens the economy. We know the advantage that brings. It brings more tax. It brings more ability to provide services—and we all benefit from that. So there are the direct benefits and there are the indirect benefits from that package.

Secondly, we are doing it by supporting business to do its part in creating a more diverse workplace. We have developed the Supporting Working Parents website in 2015, which provides practical resources for employees and employers on how best to manage and support working parents through pregnancy, through parental leave and upon return to work after parental leave. Of course, so many of us have now experienced the challenges of that. I have—in fact, four times over—and each time we battled our way through it. But it is a battle, and it is very important that the government provide that sort of support.

Thirdly, we are doing it by investing $13 million to encourage more women to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We know that not only is that focus on STEM important more, generally, across the economy but also we have a challenge with getting enough young women into education in that area, into the universities focusing on STEM and into STEM related industries.

Fourthly, we are doing it by shining a light on pay equity through the work of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which assists businesses to address pay equity concerns, including by assisting with gender pay gap audits, providing pay equity toolkits and running awareness campaigns on this very important issue. To add a couple of other points, we are doing it by demonstrating best practice in the Australian Public Service through the APS gender equality strategy and, finally, by announcing a $10 million expansion of the UnitingCare pre-employment project aimed at women—again, another important initiative that the government is pursuing.

Any further issues on this I will direct to the relevant department. It is worth mentioning, though, that, as part of the Women's Leadership and Development Strategy, the government is increasing women's workforce participation by partnering with UnitingCare Australia. We are providing $180,000 for a demonstration project to create long-term employment pathways for women in the community in the aged-care sector which, as we know, has been a sector that has been dominated by women employees. Also, through the Australian Women in Resource Alliance, we are providing just under $500,000 to support the attraction and retention of women in the resources industry through an e-mentoring program.

This has been a real focus for the government. It is an area that has great benefits for Australian women, and for all Australians more generally, through the economic boost that we get from it. It is one that this government will continue to pursue.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity to raise the issue of cities. Of course, I am somewhat concerned that whilst the new Prime Minister has said that he is concerned about the urban agenda and cities, he has in fact downgraded the role to the role of a parliamentary secretary and has not reversed any of the significant changes that were made by the Abbott government. Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister, explicitly said there was no role for the Commonwealth in our cities. The Major Cities Unit remains disbanded, as does the Urban Policy Forum. Infrastructure Australia has been marginalised, and the State of Australian Cities reports have failed to be produced under this government.

Indeed, when you look at cities policy, urban congestion and support for public transport needs to be at the forefront. The budget papers show that in 2019-20—that is, the last year of the forward estimates—public transport funding and funding for rail transport will fall to a very round number that the assistant minister should be able to remember, because it is zero. Not a single dollar is allocated in 2019-20 for public transport by this government. That is because the public transport projects that were funded by the previous government—like the Redcliffe rail line, Gold Coast Light Rail, and the Regional Rail Link in Victoria—have of course all been opened, same as the Noarlunga to Seaford line in Adelaide and the Perth City Link. That is of considerable concern.

I am also concerned about the government's support for what it calls City Deals, which really look to me as though they are just matching Labor government commitments. Certainly, in Townsville and in Launceston, that is all it did, including the former member for Herbert—it might explain why he is the former member for Herbert. It held out and opposed the funding of the Townsville stadium, which would be a part of revitalising Townsville as a city. The government belatedly matched that, missed out on the euphoria of the Cowboys' win in last year's grand final and could not even pick up on the importance of that for that city.

In Tasmania it simply matched the funding for the University of Tasmania that had been announced many months before by Labor. I would be interested in which councils will be involved in the proposed City Deal for Western Sydney. A City Deal is supposed to encourage economic growth across a region. What is the actual budget for City Deals beyond that which have been announced in the guise of City Deals by this government across the forward estimates? If it is going to be real—certainly, I think there is some prospect of some success here—it needs to be more than a political exercise, matching Labor's funding commitments.

Finally, I would ask: why is it that the Australian government is not participating in Habitat III, which is taking place as we speak in Quito in Ecuador? This is a once-in-20-years conference that is as significant as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change or other major conferences. The UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development is critical. The new urban agenda was proposed as part of the Paris conference that the Australian government participated in. This is a very significant conference indeed. There are 50,000 participants in this conference—governments from all around the world acknowledging that how cities function will be critical to sustainability and dealing with the challenge of climate change. The Australian government has chosen not to be represented at this conference. I just wonder if there is a reason?

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister well knows, my electorate of Bennelong has the innovation district of Macquarie Park, a hub of excellence for information technology and new business. Can the minister tell me how 2016 budget recent announcements will make it easier for these businesses to engage with government and deliver better services more efficiently through digitisation transformation of the government sector?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To revisit the question that I have just asked the assistant minister, the question really was about a range of issues in respect to women's workforce participation. It is important to revisit one of those questions. The minister did go to the question of early learning, education and care in his answer but he did not answer the question that I actually asked, which was: why has the government delayed those childcare reforms to 2018? If the economic benefits of them are so clear and so important, and certainly improving access to affordable and high quality early learning is important, why has the government delayed those reforms to 2018? Related to the question is this question: if it is the fact that not having child care is an obstacle to getting back into the workforce then why make it more difficult for jobseekers to have child care while they are looking for a job so that they can get back into the workforce? In other words, you will be aware that there has been some criticism of the design of the package in terms of the activities that people will have to be undertaking to be eligible for the package. Obviously writing resumes, knocking on doors, writing letters, getting in touch with prospective employers takes as much time and energy as being at work so you need to have your kids in care if you want to be able to do that so why would the government not design a package with a view to jobseekers as well as to people who have already got the benefit of participating in the workforce?

I also wanted to go to some related issues about the broader question of gender equality in this country. Gender equality, as I made clear in my previous question, is important for women and it is also important for our economy. It is really important that we have strong leadership from parliamentarians, from governments and from alternative governments in relation to gender equality in this country. That is why we on this side went to the last election with a really strong suite of policies to improve the status of women, to reduce discrimination against women and to reduce barriers to women's full participation in the economic, social and cultural life of this country.

The government, on the other hand, had a policy about surf lifesavers, about truck drivers but did not have a women's policy. The government did not have a women's policy as it went into the federal election. It is a bit of a surprise that there was no women's policy. We did have a marathon campaign. It seemed like a long time to me. You would think that there would have been time in that eight-week campaign period to announce a women's policy. I suspect that the minister would agree with me when I say that demonstration matters, role modelling matters. The minister spoke about a demonstration project that is being done with Uniting Care, but I am sure that the minister would agree with me that demonstration through the leadership of the nation is also important.

I want to ask the minister: are reports that an EL1 level staff member within the Office for Women is eligible for a salary that is $10,000 lower than an equivalent staff member within the general social policy division of PM&C? Are those reports correct? Is this pay differential replicated at any other employment band within the department? This matter first came to light in September this year and I would like to ask the minister: what steps has the Prime Minister or anyone within his department taken to address the pay disparity? If it was the case, is it still the case that an EL1 staff member within the Office for Women receives less pay than an equivalent staff member elsewhere within PM&C?

I also want to take the minister to the question of family violence prevention. It is an issue that I was intending to ask the Attorney-General's representative about last night but unfortunately was denied the opportunity. Specifically, the Prime Minister last year in September announced a women's safety package. We discovered earlier this week that for one of the initiatives, under that package for $12 million, that only $180,000 of that $12 million had actually been spent in the more than a year that has passed since then.

A new package is to be announced next week. It was confirmed at the national summit. Of that new package, the Attorney-General says $30 million will be going to legal assistance in family violence. Is the minister able to shed any light on how that $30 million will be allocated, and what the process will be for allocation? Will we see another example of what happened with the health justice partnerships last year, which was that the Attorney-General just seemed to choose a few without consulting anyone or going through any sort of rigorous process and announcing them by press release rather than through consultation with the sector? What does the government intend to do in relation to domestic and family violence leave for government employees?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Griffith for her question, the member for Grayndler for this question and also the member for Bennelong for his question. I have to say that I counted 15 questions from the member for Griffith, about 10 from the member for Grayndler and another one from the member for Bennelong. Let me work progressively through those.

I will start with the member for Bennelong's question, which related to his electorate of Bennelong and the innovation district, Macquarie Park, which I was delighted to visit only a couple of weeks ago. It is truly one of the emerging innovation districts in this country which offers phenomenal potential. As the minister for cities, it is really wonderful to see the work that is going on there.

An innovation district is something that is extremely important to the future of this country. The reality is that we are seeing all around the world countries gaining enormous competitive advantage from the development of these districts, which have certain very clear characteristics. One of those characteristics is public transport—and I do want to come back to the question from the member for Grayndler about public transport; the truth is we are investing enormous amounts into public transport at the moment. But you also have to see mixed use—this is residential, commercial and even light industrial work; and that is absolutely what we are seeing in Macquarie Park—and clusters of small prosperous businesses. This is something that the coalition understands, I think, far better than those opposite: if you do not get those clusters of growing businesses, you do not get successful innovation districts. All of that we are seeing in Macquarie Park, and it truly is one of the great illustrations of what is possible in this country. It has a long way to go, and I think everyone who is in that area knows it has a long way to go.

The member's specific question was about the digital transformation of government, and this is something I have been passionate about for many years and wrote about well before I came into the current role, because every government in this era needs to be able to spend and deliver more with less. That is true across the Western world. We all face tough fiscal constraints. Many of those opposite imagine that there is a money tree somewhere from which you can get lots of money and spend it on whatever is your latest pet program. However, the reality of the modern era is that is simply not possible.

One way that we can spend our money more effectively is through the better use of information technology. Not only that; we can get better outcomes. Again and again, we have seen modelling in the private sector of how this is made possible. In government, we have a very strong focus on how digitisation can actually deliver benefits. We know Deloitte's have told us that there is a couple of billion dollars per annum up for grabs just in efficiency gains—and that does not even extend to other significant benefits in compliance, better policy and better outcomes. Of course in my area of responsibility, the now Digital Transformation Office is absolutely focused on that prize, that opportunity. Only last week, I was delighted to announce further changes: a strengthening of that agency and a further strengthening of its focus on that digital opportunity that I have outlined.

We are making good progress in particular areas, and one of the things we have seen is that relatively modest changes can have very big impacts. One of the examples that I am particularly proud of is that we recently invested $5.4 million into the next generation of the program to improve the myGov service, which included 18 short-term fixes. A team comprising the Department of Human Services and what is now the Digital Transformation Agency came up with 18 short-term fixes and immediately implemented the highest impacting of those fixes. Anyone who used myGov in the past will know that there was real frustration with it. However, since these changes we have seen a doubling of the number of people using the service on a month-to-month basis, a doubling of the number of people using the service during this year's tax period, a halving in the number of people who had trouble logging on, a 37 per cent fall in forgotten usernames, a 53 per cent fall in incorrect security codes and a 54 per cent decrease in password resets. These are practical changes that are having a big impact, resulting in a more effective government service, with benefits for the government and benefits for citizens.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Griffith, I remind her that at 12.15 we will be moving to Indigenous affairs. So, if she expects an answer to her question, she might like to truncate her contribution. I call the member for Griffith.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask for a third time: why has the child care package been delayed to 2018? For the second time: is there still a pay disparity between the Office for Women and the general Social Policy Division of the PM&C? For the first time: thank you for talking about the Digital Transformation Agenda. Has the Digital Transformation Agency or the Public Data Branch been consulted about the sale or otherwise commercialisation of the ASIC registry?

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be here today as we are considering the Prime Minister and Cabinet's budget allocations, particularly in relation to cities. I think that is very important, particularly as someone who represents one of the most densely populated parts of Australia. Australia is, as we know, one of the most urbanised countries in the world. I think our cities overall remain extraordinarily successful places to live as part of our economic prosperity. We know that we have some of the most liveable cities in the country. We also know that an increasing proportion of Australia's GDP, particularly as we move to a service economy, is being generated by our cities, including our CBDs. For any government that is interested in productivity growth and our economic prosperity, it is pleasing to see the focus that we currently have on our cities. I think it is fair to say that we have in our Prime Minister and in the Turnbull household two of Australia's leading experts on the future of our cities, and it is therefore not surprising that this is receiving the focus that it is.

It stands in sharp contrast to the approach of the former Labor government, which spoke big on cities but really was all about new committees and reports. Under this government, I am pleased that we are seeing really tangible and exciting ideas, with the Commonwealth working with other levels of government to try and overcome some of the problems that beset our cities, particularly in making sure that our transport infrastructure is up to scratch and in supporting people's lifestyles but also, just as importantly, in addressing the role of transport in the productivity of our cities and in making sure that our planning policies are right, and so on.

Minister, I wanted to specifically ask what the government is doing to plan for our cities' growth in the future but also how the budget invests in the Commonwealth's capacity to partner with other tiers of government to ensure our cities succeed and, with them, the national economy.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for that question and the member for Griffith for another round of her questions. I will very quickly hit one of her persistent questions about the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. We remain committed to the implementation of that package, of course. Bills covering those elements of the package that require legislative changes, and the family tax benefit reforms needed to fund the package, were introduced on 1 September 2016. We delayed implementation of those parts of the package that require legislative changes and significant additional investment by a year, until July 2018, because the relevant bills were not passed by the previous parliament. But those elements that are not tied to the passage of legislation are commencing as planned. I will not go through all of those, in the interests of time.

I do want to come back to the series of questions relating to cities from the member for Grayndler and the member for North Sydney. I am working through the 25 or so questions that I have received as best I can and will take the ones that I cannot get through on notice. I want to make a couple of comments on cities. We are obviously very committed to the cities policy. It has not been downgraded; it has been put into the Prime Minister's portfolio, and that is a very important move. Within it and the infrastructure budget is very significant investment in public transport, including $43 million to the Flinders Link, $95 million to Gold Coast light rail, $595 million to the Moreton Bay rail link and so on. I will not go through all of those.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It is now 12.15. Any unresolved questions from the member for North Sydney or the member for Griffith can be put in writing to the assistant minister. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Indigenous affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In July 2016 the ABC's Four Corners program screened footage of children in detention at Don Dale correctional facility in the Northern Territory being abused, forced into restraint chairs, subjected to tear gas and forced to wear hoods. I think that every Australian was appalled by what they saw on the program—every Australian, that is, except for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who did not bother to watch it and was out to dinner. The following day in a press conference he actually decided to say that he was not aware prior to the screening the night before of the nature of the abuse that was occurring. But these reports have been contradicted by a number of sources, including the producer of the ABC program, who said that a copy of the show had been provided to the minister's office at lunchtime of the day of screening.

It is worth mentioning in some detail the nature of what was aired by Four Cornersmatters that, of course, are now the subject of a royal commission, including threats of self-harm by young people; the use of chair restraints, including the use of chair restraints that are not commonplace in youth justice; the use of so-called spit hoods on young people; that six young people were placed in solitary confinement for between six and 17 days and for between 22 and 24 hours a day; and juvenile inmates being tear-gassed.

The minister stated the day after Four Corners aired that he was not aware of the nature of the abuse occurring at Don Dale. Specifically, the minister stated that, prior to the Four Corners program airing, the issues at Don Dale had failed to 'pique his interest sufficiently' and that he had assumed that the Northern Territory government were taking care of the matter. This is despite the ABC having reported in October last year on calls by the Law Council of Australia for the Northern Territory government to take urgent action to protect vulnerable children incarcerated in its youth detention system. The same report stated:

Of particular concern to the Law Council is the indiscriminate use of hoods and handcuffs, the solitary confinement of young people in breach of the NT's Youth Justice Act, and the use of tear-gas in favour of a meaningful attempt to negotiate a peaceful outcome in response to last August's unrest.

The Minister for Indigenous affairs made these comments despite having been briefed my departmental officials on issues at Don Dale correctional centre in October last year—something the minister was forced to subsequently admit. This was far from the only report by the ABC last year. More significantly, there was also the review of the Northern Territory youth detention system by Michael Vita, known also as the Vita report. That report was released publicly in February 2015 and should have been well known to the minister.

So I ask the assistant minister: how is it possible that such matters could not have piqued the minister's interest, given there were public reports and that he was briefed on the matters by departmental officials? Why didn't the minister know about these matters? What did PM&C officials know about this abuse and what advice was provided to the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister about it?

In responding to these events, the government announced a royal commission, though only days after Brian Martin was appointed a royal commissioner he resigned. This happened, of course, because the government failed to consult with Indigenous people about the appointment. Minister, why was there no consultation prior to the announcement of the royal commission and the royal commissioner? If the minister did not consult with Indigenous people before an announcement was made, did the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General or any other minister do so?

What has changed the minister's behaviour to give any assurance that he now takes these matters seriously? What assurances are there that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs takes his responsibilities seriously and is committed to improving the lives of Indigenous people in a genuine and meaningful way? This is such a serious matter and it has been handled appallingly by this government. It is little wonder that some of the most respected and senior Indigenous leaders have lost faith in the minister.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for this opportunity to ask you some questions, Minister, in your role representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I have long been very interested in and engaged in the issue of Indigenous advancement in Brisbane and in fact all around Australia. It has been great to have several visits to Brisbane already, over a very short period of time, from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to talk about local Indigenous issues. On many of those occasions, we have focused specifically on Indigenous employment, Indigenous skills and Indigenous entrepreneurship. I know how important skills, jobs and economic opportunities are for many people, including Indigenous people in Brisbane. I know from my previous work at the National Retail Association, where we did a lot of work in the area of skills development for Indigenous communities in Far North Queensland and in the Torres Strait, as well as for a range of other vulnerable and less-skilled people right around society, how important it is to teach them and to help them achieve their full potential.

I am very aware that the coalition took to the election one of the most proudly pro-business platforms in living memory. Included in that platform was a great amount of support specifically for Indigenous entrepreneurs to create jobs and investment for all sectors in our community. I have been really interested and delighted to research and learn that the coalition has managed to create 39,000 Indigenous jobs since it came into office in 2013. I am a very strong supporter of the government having established a $115 million Indigenous entrepreneurs package, including $90 million for an Indigenous entrepreneurs fund. In the ongoing task of closing the gap, I know that the coalition is very committed to encouraging Indigenous innovation to create more opportunities for Indigenous businesses and, in turn, employment.

I am also very keen to ensure that the coalition's approach to government procurement is a game-changer for Indigenous businesses. Since the program commenced in July last year, the coalition government has awarded 911 contracts worth $154.1 million to over 270 Indigenous businesses. That compares to only about $6.2 million in Commonwealth procurement outcomes for Indigenous businesses in 2012-13, before we took office.

Minister, can you please tell me how the budget has guaranteed Indigenous entrepreneurs funding? What is the government doing to ensure funding will flow to business support and capability development activities?

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to put to the assistant minister one very important issue within the Aboriginal community. Just the other day, I had reason to talk to some community members. I know from my own experience that, while the level of youth suicide is a national tragedy, in the Aboriginal community it is even more pronounced. I was talking to a woman from Yarrabah who lives up near Palm Island, and three young people have taken their own lives just in the space of two weeks. I would like to ask the assistant minister about this important topic. It needs to be understood that if there is a youth suicide in the Aboriginal community it is not isolated—people are related through kinship structures, and the grief and the trauma is felt not just by one family; it is felt right across that community.

Assistant Minister, I would like an update on the roundtable on Indigenous suicide held in the Kimberley on 14 October that got quite a bit of publicity. There were some issues that became obvious from the community: they did not want to see it as a talkfest. I would like that issue to be specifically addressed and to hear what the actual outcomes are. I noticed that the minister said there would be further discussions, but it seemed to me that it was just a bit of a talkfest, and I cannot see any real outcome from that. I would also like to ask the minister about the incidence and the strategies that are taking place across the country, not just in the Kimberley region, in relation to this particular issue.

The other thing I would like to mention is the issue of the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre, and I understand my colleague has also raised this issue, around who knew what and when. It is very clear that not the whole truth has been told about that. I do not want to jump to conclusions but I would like some definite answers there.

I would also very much like to know what the methodology was for the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and, within that, how many of the Aboriginal advocacy groups have been defunded. I am aware of at least three and, if the government's overall approach to funding Indigenous organisations includes the defunding of advocacy groups, that is a very big concern.

The third issue I would like to raise is the outbreak of syphilis that is occurring across the north of Australia, Queensland and Western Australia. We know just how difficult this issue is. It is not an issue that is easily spoken about, but I would very much like to know what the government is doing about this, particularly in terms of community education, how Aboriginal health services are being supported, what access there is to primary care facilities and what good sexual health education programs and preventative health programs are in place and are being supported by the government.

Finally, can I say that the area around social justice for Indigenous people is something that everyone is responsible for, not just governments. I would like to know about those three specific issues: the methodology in relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy; what is happening in terms of primary health care and supporting primary healthcare facilities in relation to the north and the west with regard to that difficult issue of syphilis; and, most critically, what the outcomes were in relation to the discussions in the Kimberley on suicide, and what is happening nationally in taking this as an important and serious issue.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all three members for their questions. I will seek, in the five minutes I have now, to get through as many of them as possible. We continue to accumulate a very long list of questions, so I will seek to focus on the most important of them, because there is no possible way that I can get through all of them in the time allotted. There are important questions around suicide prevention, the Don Dale corrections centre facility—a series of questions were raised there—and, of course, extremely important questions around the Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs program. Of course, that program in itself is very, very important for creating opportunity for Indigenous communities and creating gainful employment, which we know is an enormously important issue.

Let me touch first on some comments on the Don Dale correction facility questions. Obviously, the government is very concerned about the serious issues raised by the ABC report into the treatment of young people in the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre. The Commonwealth did act swiftly in establishing a royal commission into the detention of children in the Northern Territory, as the member opposite pointed out. Quite rightly, we made the decision to get on with it. Sometimes in politics it is very important to act decisively when there are very, very important issues at stake. We have asked the royal commission to forensically examine the workings of the Northern Territory's youth detention centre.

Minister Scullion already acknowledged that his office received briefing information about the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre going back to 2015. These documents and the information contained in all reports available at the time did not include the footage shown by the ABC. I understand that, following the lodgement of FOI requests, his department conducted a thorough search of briefs prepared for his office, and this also found some reference to the centre in the background of a meeting brief from 2015 as well. It is important to recognise that the documents received by the minister stated that the NT government was investigating the allegations and implementing the recommendations of the vetted report. In fact, the NT Children's Commissioner stated at an NT estimates hearing in June 2016 that she was satisfied with the work done on the implementation of her report's recommendation.

The NT government has made a number of immediate changes while the royal commission undertakes its work—and it is a good thing it is doing that—including announcing it will appoint an inspector-general for corrections and establishing a special police task force to investigate the allegations of violence.

I can go a little further into that, if time permits, but I do want to spend a moment on the question around Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. I thank the member for Brisbane for that important question. He, of course, was in his electorate, when the $115 million Indigenous entrepreneurs package was announced by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That package is a very important one, because it provides $90 million for the Indigenous Entrepreneurs Fund, which Indigenous small businesses and entrepreneurs can apply to for business assets. The fund will focus on regional areas and remote communities where accessing commercial finance is often not possible.

All of us know that a successful, growing business is an extraordinary opportunity. It creates opportunity not just for the business itself but for the employees and for the people in it.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Those opposite, I hear them interjecting in some form—I have no idea what sense they are making over there. The truth is that we understand, on this side of the House, how important it is to have successful growing businesses in this country. That is something that we know, from personal experience, time and time again has an enormous impact. I saw the power of procurement policies over in the Pilbara as the iron ore boom started to grow during the early 2000s and what an enormously positive impact that had for those people and those communities. This set of programs is directed towards— (Time expired)

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame that the member for Brisbane asked a question and then left the room before hearing the answer and it is a great shame that the consequence of that was that the minister did not get the chance in his response to answer the member for Barton's questions about suicide amongst Indigenous communities. I repeat and refer to the member for Barton's questions about both suicide and syphilis and ask that the minister address those questions.

I also refer to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It is well known to members of this place, and especially well known to Indigenous people, that this government cut $500 million from the Indigenous affairs portfolio in its disastrous 2014 federal budget and established a new grants program called the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. This program was supposed to focus on jobs, land and the economy; children and schooling; safety and wellbeing; culture and capability; and remote Australia strategies. However, its implementation has been an utter disaster that has seen a reduction in frontline services.

In March 2016, a Senate inquiry delivered its final report into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, making nine recommendations including:

… that future tender rounds are not blanket competitive processes and are underpinned by robust service planning and needs mapping.

…   …   …

… that future tendering processes should be planned strategically, with a clear sense of service gaps and community need based on consultation with local services and communities.

…   …   …

… that future selection criteria and funding guidelines should give weighting to the contribution and effectiveness of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations to provide to their community beyond the service they are directly contracted to provide.

…   …   …

… that where possible and appropriate, longer contracts be awarded to ensure stability so that organisations can plan and deliver sustainable services to their communities.

…   …   …

… that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet improve its overall Indigenous Advancement Strategy communication plan to ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed and have access to clear and timely information.

…   …   …

… that the full internal review of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy process undertaken and facilitated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet be made public.

…   …   …

… that the Government release the revised funding guidelines as a draft for consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their organisations.

…   …   …

… that Government prioritise investment in capacity building and support for smaller community controlled organisations in future tender processes.

…   …   …

… that the Government act immediately to address the 30 June 2016 funding deadline for organisations.

To date, it would appear that the government has done nothing whatsoever to address these recommendations and it would appear that the government has done nothing to improve Indigenous people's access to frontline services. I will give an example. Today, I met with the Katherine Womens Information and Legal Service. They have two sources of funding: the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the Commonwealth National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. Of course, at the same time as the Indigenous Advancement Strategy money runs out, there is a 30 per cent cut to the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. They are facing a funding cliff. There is no certainty for organisations funded under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. It is a real problem, not just because of the uncertainty for the clients but because of the uncertainty for planning of the services. If you do not know if you are going to have a job after a certain date, of course a workforce issue that arises from that. You might think about looking for other alternatives and you might be concerned about the longevity of your position. You also have a situation where that planning then flows on to the services that people are able to provide.

I ask the assistant minister: what has the government done to improve access to frontline services for Indigenous people and what measures can the assistant minister point to in subsequent budgets after the 2014 budget that achieved this? I ask the assistant minister whether the government is still committed to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and when any additional rounds of funding will be available through the IAS. Further, and of great importance, I ask the assistant minister what engagement there has been with Indigenous people to ensure that not only are the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration's inquiry implemented but are done in a way that Indigenous communities are consulted on the way frontline organisations are properly resourced to provide the services Indigenous people need.

In summary, there are two questions here for the minister. Firstly, what is being done about Indigenous suicide and syphilis? Secondly, what is being done about the Indigenous Advancement Strategy? I hope that the minister will take the time to answer the questions I have asked.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to ask a question of the minister today, particularly because in Wide Bay we do have a significant proportion of Indigenous people. We also have the community of Cherbourg in Wide Bay, which is very important to me. I have spent quite some time in Cherbourg helping where I can to close the gap. Indeed, during the campaign we had several visits from ministers—particularly the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, who spent some time in Cherbourg and Murgon with me visiting with the council and local people, looking at local programs and speaking to the people, particularly in the area of education. We visited the Cherbourg school, and it was very pleasing and encouraging to see what is happening there, particularly in the area of school attendance. Some of the statistics that surround school attendance and achieving a result at school for Indigenous people, and them subsequently not entering into the justice system, are quite staggering. Effectively, if we can get Indigenous people to finish year 10 their potential for going into the justice system is far, far reduced, which is what we all want to see. It was also very pleasing for the government to give Cherbourg a kick on and announce $230,000 for a very worthy program at the Ration Shed.

The coalition entered into government in 2013 with a determination to untangle an absolute mess of programs that were doing very little to reduce the disadvantage faced by our Indigenous people. We had specifically targeted three fundamental areas to help reduce this disadvantage. These areas were: getting the kids to school, employment and also making the community safer. These three priorities are critical to establishing the change needed to support better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in remote areas, to ensure that First Australians and their communities can realise their hopes and aspirations for the future and that we really do close the gap and achieve our targets in those programs.

Education is the passport to a better future for children everywhere. It is no different for Indigenous children, wherever they live. Without a proper education, Indigenous children are more likely than not to be on the path toward welfare dependence, interaction with the justice system and poor health and housing outcomes, with little hope for the future. Giving kids the best chance in life means going to school regularly and achieving a good school education and then moving on to further education and employment. Obviously, successfully achieving those things, which we are so passionate about doing, is how we proactively prevent circumstances like those tragic circumstances of Don Dale and youth suicide in the Indigenous community, which is what we are about. With this in mind, I ask the minister: can the minister advise how the budget is supporting better education outcomes for Indigenous Australians and what funding has been allocated to support Indigenous students through school and university?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are three minutes left. There are unanswered questions from you, the member for Wide Bay and the member for Barton. I call the minister.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the various members for their questions. We are narrowing them down, which is a good thing. The number of questions does suggest to me that there must be some political statements in what is being said rather than a focus on the issues. But there are some very important issues in the questions that have been raised. Let me touch for a moment on the education question, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy question and the suicide prevention and health questions, which are all tied up in a series of questions asked by those opposite. All of these are extremely important.

I have a couple of comments to start with on the education side. We all know, as the member said, that

education is a passport to a better future. There is no better way of putting it. Of course we know, and I have seen personally, the extraordinary power of education for those who are disadvantaged in some form or another and the passport that it provides those people for a better life. We know the Remote School Attendance Strategy was introduced against a backdrop of declining attendance over many years. In the budget we have reaffirmed the government's commitment to better education outcomes for Indigenous Australians. It really does start with this question of attendance; that is absolutely central to our thinking about improvements in education. Since 2014, when the Minister for Indigenous Affairs introduced this measure initially, the government has invested $127 million to support the community-based Remote School Attendance Strategy through to 31 December 2018. That attendance strategy employs more than 450 local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to support the families and work with schools to lift attendance rates in 77 schools across 74 remote communities. I really commend this program, its objectives, and the results we are seeing, to this chamber. I think it is absolutely central to closing the gap and achieving the sorts of outcomes we all want to see in our Indigenous communities.

Let me make a couple of points about the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The member for Griffith has made an assertion about this strategy which is absolutely incorrect. It is not correct to say that there has been a $535 million cut to the Indigenous affairs program, which is how you—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this session has concluded. I thank honourable members for their contributions.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.