Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make an opening statement. I'd like to start by providing an overview of my department, the operations the department undertakes and the sheer size and complexity of the work that they undertake.

The Department of Human Services, encompassing Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency, touches the lives, at some point, of almost every Australian. Second only to the Department of Defence in terms of size, my department employs around 33,000 staff. Each fortnight my department delivers payments to more than five million Australians, totalling more than $174 billion each year. In 2016-17, the Department of Human Services had more than 700 million interactions with people, including over 52 million phone calls, 19 million face-to-face visits and 629 million digital transactions. Already this financial year, we have handled 43.9 million phone calls, over 16 million face-to-face visits and almost 740 million digital transactions.

To support people in their interactions with the government, particularly in my department, the coalition has invested in major business and IT transformation projects to modernise our services. This investment has delivered an enhanced online service experience, enabling people to interact with the department in a more efficient and effective way. As part of this year's budget, from 1 July, $316.2 million will be rolled out over four years to enhance how welfare benefits are claimed and processed. The Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transformation Program, which we call WPIT, has already delivered significant improvements to the way students access Austudy and youth allowance payments. Those claiming jobseeker, age and disability pensions and carer payments will be the next to reap the benefits from digital transformation. Improving the way Australians interact with government services is also a priority, and we have allocated an additional $50 million in this year's budget to manage customer demand while the Department of Human Services continues to transform the delivery of payments and services. In addition, I announced a further 1,000 call centre operators in April to further assist with reducing call wait times. As a result of recent improvements, busy signals on our telephone lines have reduced by 44 per cent since the start of the year, which is an extraordinary result. This is a marked improvement on where we were.

The government is committed to delivering the best possible services to the Australian people. The budget allocation for social welfare makes up nearly a third of Australia's total budget every financial year. To ensure we can continue to provide a secure and supportive social welfare system, the bill must be manageable and we need to make sure that we're not leaving future generations to pick up the cost of our expenditure now.

Since 1 July 2016, this government has achieved savings of $1.7 billion through measures that crack down on welfare fraud and enhance compliance. We've introduced measures to ensure the integrity of the system. We're now proactively prompting more recipients than ever to keep their details up to date, reducing the likelihood they will incur a future debt. We're continuing to roll out Taskforce Integrity, a joint task force with the Australian Federal Police, to sites this financial year. We are increasing income data-matching checks to over 600,000 per year, half a million more than were done when the Labor Party was in government. In April this year, my department commenced notifying former customers with existing debts that interest will be charged on those debts should they not repay that money or should they not enter into a repayment arrangement with us. These measures were extended through this year's budget to build on that past success.

On the other hand, while reducing the number of compliance checks, the former Labor government decreased the value of debts raised by half, from $419 million in the 2006-07 year to just $220 million in the 2012-13 year. Those opposite are happy to have a costly system where people can help themselves with no repercussions for defrauding hardworking taxpayers. This government is committed to living within our means and better managing our spending now in order to protect the future of all Australians. The Turnbull government is continuing to provide a genuine safety net for those in need while making it more sustainable by continuing to strengthen the integrity of the system.

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

Last month's budget confirmed that the government will cut staffing levels to the Department of Human Services by 1,280. Last year the government reduced the department's ASL by 1,180. This reduction of almost 2,500 over the past two years has had a devastating impact on the department, on its staff, on its services and, most importantly, on its clients. The age pensioners and carers are waiting longer to have their payments approved by Centrelink. Median processing times for the age pension have increased from 36 days to 49 days; for carers, from 28 days to 47 days. These are just median times. The median times data doesn't take into account instances when Centrelink requests further information, which can further delay the approval process, often by many, many days.

The reality is that many older Australians and many carers are waiting many more months for their payments. We have absolute evidence of this, and so will every one of you in your constituent offices. Australians who have worked all their lives and carers looking after loved ones are being forced to live on the edge of their bank accounts and go into poverty. Ask any Australian who has contact with Centrelink and they will tell you their own personal nightmare. Average call wait times have blown out for all of those particular payments. For older Australians times have jumped from 19 minutes to 23 minutes, and the list goes on and on and on. These are just the averages. We've heard stories of people waiting absolutely hours just to speak to someone. It is absolutely true. We know that many are attempting to circumvent the phone lines by attending Centrelink in person. They are also facing longer wait times. The average wait time has gone from 12 minutes and four seconds to over 15 minutes, and this is on record. Just look at budget estimates. It is often the case that people who attend in person are directed back to the phones and forced back into enduring lengthy wait times on the phone. I have spoken to such people, and they have told me their own personal stories. We know that over the past year the government has attempted to shift more people to managing their Centrelink matters online. We also know that this transition has not been easy, particularly for older Australians. We know this because the number of busy signals for older Australians on the age pension phone line has increased from 800,000 to 1.2 million.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

I can't hear myself, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of the rudeness of people opposite.

Government members interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will be heard in silence.

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

We know that Centrelink's online interface can be difficult to use—

Government members interjecting—

enormous demands on the phone services but also the need for processing times.

Debt recovery: wasn't robo-debt such a success for those opposite! I won't go into detail there, except to say that robo-debt has certainly stood in the forefront of people's minds.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:41 to 10:53

Long wait times for calls, long processing times and difficulties in managing Centrelink online are not the only sources of anxiety for Australians who receive income support. There are enormous problems in terms of the government raising debts against people, and these debts either are much more inflated than they actually are or don't even exist. We have countless examples of people being sent debt notices, but, when the matter is raised with Centrelink, they owe no money at all.

The reality is that recovered debts make up less than 0.01 per cent of Centrelink payments, and it is clear that the vast majority of Australians are doing the right thing. It just astounds me that this government is very happy to go out and say that people owe Centrelink money and pursue people like they're criminals, when they're actually people who are in need, and yet it has absolutely no scruples when it comes to admitting that it has raised false debt notice after false debt notice and expected people to pay the money back.

The privatisation of Centrelink by stealth is absolutely the wrong thing. They are outsourcing jobs, and it is Serco that they are outsourcing jobs to. That is why it is so important that Centrelink has permanent full-time staff. My question to the minister is: what impact will the reduction of the ASL have on the quality of the department's service delivery? That is a question, Minister, that I want you to answer.

Honourable members interjecting—

I want you to answer that question and try and be honest about it if you can.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noise level in the chamber is too high. I can't hear the speakers. Speakers will be listened to quietly.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin, I thank Minister Keenan for his dedication and the way that he has embraced his role as the Minister for Human Services, which I saw when the minister recently visited Dunkley to open the refurbished Frankston Service Centre, covering Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support and DVA. The office was extensively damaged following a fire in April last year, which forced not only the Centrelink, Medicare and DVA offices out of the building but also my office, the Red Cross, the AEC and ORS Employment, which was where the fire started. Minister, I know the staff and the public appreciated your joining us for the opening and your acknowledgement of the difficulties of working in temporary spaces for a long time.

The perseverance shown by all who have now moved back into Plowman House is largely down to their absolute commitment to help those who require the services of Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support and DVA. This was demonstrated by the DHS Mobile Service Centre 'Desert Rose' being on site for up to eight days, to ensure that my constituents were able to continue to access essential Centrelink, Medicare and other services in the time when Centrelink had no office—and indeed when I had no office. My constituents in Dunkley are now able to do their Centrelink, Medicare and DVA business back in the newly refurbished centre at 20 Davey Street. Following the fire, these offices have been completely remodelled to offer the best face-to-face services and self-service options on the one floor. People will be able to attend their booked appointments and assessments on site. A drop box for Medicare claims, document lodgement facilities and a Department of Veterans' Affairs veterans information service will also be available on the same floor. I look forward to the Centrelink office continuing to provide an important service to our local community. I know the minister's passion for continuing to improve upon Centrelink services in my area and across the country over time. As noted before, the 1,250 additional people he is putting on to help improve Centrelink services are also extremely important.

The reason I tell this story is that I want to make a few points, as part of this consideration-in-detail process, on the government's approach to ensuring a strong but sustainable welfare safety net in our country. This safety net is a necessary part of our society. Many people at some point in their lives need the services and assistance of the Department of Human Services, whether it be in relation to Medicare rebates; youth allowance, while studying; a pension, for those who have never been in the position to contribute to superannuation; or DVA services, for our ex-service men and women. I myself have relied on the services of Centrelink. When I was studying, I received youth allowance. In periods of unemployment, I received Newstart. When I had my young daughter, I received parental leave. So I know the need for these payments. I also know the frustration sometimes in dealing with the systems, which we are continuing to improve over time. I know that the minister is passionate about continuing to improve those services so there are fewer and fewer problems over time.

At the same time, our government is creating a stronger economy, ensuring that we can continue to guarantee the essential services Australians rely on and therefore guarantee the services provided by the Department of Human Services. We are also providing the tax relief that is necessary and bringing the budget back to balance. Once we have started to pay down our debt, by bringing the budget back into surplus, we can contribute to the necessary services under our safety net and provide the necessary education and health services. On this note, I first ask the minister: how is the government guaranteeing essential services like Centrelink and Medicare and ensuring that they are able to continue to support my constituents in Dunkley and all Australians into the future?

Lastly, I note that more than one million jobs have been created since the coalition government was elected, bringing people into work, into longer term employment, so they don't necessarily have to rely on Centrelink safety net payments. Under this government, 140,000 people have moved off welfare since we came into office. By moving 140,000 people off welfare and into work the government will save upwards of $20 billion in lifetime welfare costs. Unlike those opposite, the government believe in the Australian people. We recognise that the best form of welfare is a job—a job that provides confidence, a job that provides opportunity for that family and a job that provides for aspiration for those people and their kids and grandkids over many generations. Can the minister update the House on the continued efforts to also— (Time expired)

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year's budget reduces the Department of Human Services' average staffing levels by 1,280 people. This is on top of last year's budget, which reduced staff by 1,180. That's 2,500 staff gone from Centrelink across the country. It is no surprise, therefore, that in an area like mine people are walking through my door looking for support to tell us their stories about dealing with Centrelink. It's amazing that this government doesn't seem to understand the compounding impact of not just a reduction in staffing levels, in something that's supposed to be about customer service, but on top of that they are also introducing their robo-debt scheme, which causes more work. Now we're going to have early learning and child care; we're going to have all of those families reporting to Centrelink. We're increasing the workload and decreasing the staff. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that this is going to have a negative impact on efficiency and productivity. In an electorate like mine, that's exactly where we're seeing it. We know today that this government is completely fiscally irresponsible, and what's happening at Centrelink shows us it is also managerially incompetent.

Let's have a look at some of the things coming out of my electorate. On 31 March, the median processing time for the age pension was said to be 49 days. But Judith, in my community, has been waiting 131 days. She is still waiting for her application to be processed—after 131 days! This government not only wants to legislate to stop you getting a pension until you're 70; if you're 65 it wants you to wait until you're 70, just waiting for Centrelink to process the data! Duncan, in my community, has waited 161 days from submitting his application before it was processed. Does the minister think it's reasonable that people applying for a pension, including our seniors applying for a pension, are waiting these lengths of time? Does he think it's reasonable that they have no income for that length of time?

If I go to youth allowance we have a similar story. This government's been doing some interesting things in the university sector, like cutting it, and they're looking at the introduction of $100,000 degrees. When they can't get those things through, what's next? People in my electorate are waiting 125 days for youth allowance payment. Courtney is waiting 125 days for her youth allowance. What does that mean to families? What does that mean to first in family who are going to university? What it means is, don't worry about the debt you're going to incur; don't worry about the fact that you have no guarantee of what that debt will be by the time you finish your course; she won't even be able to get there. She will have to give up university because Centrelink are understaffed and can't deal with the workload. Abdul waited 81 days from when he lodged his application for it to be processed.

This not good enough. These are our best and brightest, heading off to university. The system says they should get support. Does the minister think these processing times are reasonable?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you raise these with my office?

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister think these are isolated incidents? The member for Barton went clearly through the—

Honourable members interjecting—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is becoming a ruckus in here. Please keep your voices down. There are ample opportunities to respond as ministers and as members of the opposition who wish to continue making a speech on this particular subject.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few other questions in terms of the relationship that's occurring between our offices. In particular, I have the experience of my own office. Minister, in the past, my office was able to make inquiries on behalf of constituents by ringing Centrelink team leaders, and, in most cases, the situation was finalised there and then. Why is it that my office has now been advised that they are not permitted to ring directly but, rather, must send an email? Can you explain why it can take, in some cases, a week for the email sent by my office to Centrelink to even be acknowledged? Can the minister tell us how that's impacting on these processing delays? In recent weeks, it has become apparent that, in response to these emails, Centrelink have taken appropriate action, like accessing processing of claims. However, they are not telling my office what the outcome is. Does the minister think it's reasonable that constituents need to ring my office to say, 'Thank you for the work,' after they hear from Centrelink because we're being ignored. (Time expired)

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity today to ask some questions of the minister, because I know how hard he's working in his portfolio areas and how much he cares about making sure every single Australian gets the assistance that they need, when they're in need, or has access to childcare services that are going to help so many Australians get back into the workforce, stay in the workforce and study, if they want to, as well. In fact, I know how hard the entire Turnbull government is working to ensure that Australian families keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets, unlike those opposite who, unfortunately, would like to take more money from them.

We know that cost-of-living pressures are putting strain on many Australian households, and this is particularly true when it comes to the issue of childcare costs. That's why our new childcare package is so important: it will deliver more support for more families. We are injecting an extra $2.5 billion into the childcare and early learning system. This is a significant investment. Under our plan, we will scrap the annual rebate cap for most families, increase the hourly cap rate and reduce the 15 per cent withholding rate introduced by the Labor Party in 2011 to just five per cent. We are providing the greatest subsidy and financial support to lower-income families who need it most. To put it simply, we are providing real relief for families who have been struggling with the cost of child care for too long.

It's estimated that nearly one million Australian families will benefit from the changes. In South Australia, around 80 per cent of families will benefit from the Turnbull government's reforms. In my electorate of Boothby, more than 6,250 families are set to benefit from the changes. We're encouraging parents who want to get into the workforce for the first time, parents who want to work more, parents who want to study and parents who want to volunteer and give back to the community to do so. An estimated 230,000 Australians will increase their workforce participation because of our reforms. We recognise how busy working families are and how precious their time is, so we have set up a simple transition process from the current system to the new system. By 1 July, families need to answer four quick and easy steps to confirm their information via myGov or the Centrelink app or by telephone.

Unlike those opposite, who have been engaging in a scare campaign that can only serve to disadvantage families, I've been out and about in my community in my electorate of Boothby, spreading the message about our new childcare package. I have been letting families know that, if they are currently receiving childcare assistance, they need to confirm their details and provide any new information in order to be assessed for the new childcare subsidy before 1 July. Many families in my electorate of Boothby will be hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year better off under our reforms, but they must make the switch. Already, we know that many families have signed up to receive the benefits of these reforms. That's the feedback I and my colleagues on this side of the House are getting from parents and from childcare providers.

Clearly, families can see the benefits of our childcare and early learning reforms. I recently visited Goodstart Early Learning Centre in Aberfoyle Park with the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, Dr David Gillespie, where staff and parents told me that they were really pleased with how the transition to the new package is going. Goodstart Early Learning at Aberfoyle Park is an absolutely amazing facility for preschool children, and I was excited to show the minister the recent renovations that they have done, particularly to their outdoor play area, which is absolutely amazing!

There are several sandpits, teepees, a garden, a vegetable patch, lots of interactive play equipment for the children and also a lot of astroturf. They have so much green space; it is just amazing. The centre are working to move away from plastic toys and aiming to give their children a more wholesome play experience while doing things like educating them about how to grow plants and vegetables. I commend Rachelle and the dedicated staff at Goodstart Early Learning Aberfoyle Park for their passion, dedication and good-natured patience with visiting members of parliament.

While visiting, I learnt also that they are helping families to optimise their subsidy under the new arrangements by offering more flexible sessions to parents. Our message to families is very clear: please sign up today. You need to do so by 1 July. The new childcare package makes things simpler, easier and more flexible and, most importantly, puts money back into the pockets of hardworking Australians. Minister, can you please provide the House with an update on the transition of families to the new childcare system. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, it's been brought to my attention that this session is about to be completed, within five minutes. The minister has asked to have an opportunity to respond before his session ends, if it's okay with the opposition.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He won't answer any questions. I'd rather put some more questions to him so he can write back. I will put a couple of things in Hansard, because it is rare that you actually get the opportunity to have the minister here, and in my experience, despite what he said before, his office doesn't actually respond.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

You don't respond to letters. Not one letter that I have written you since you have been minister have you actually responded to. The first thing I'd like to raise in your crisis of a portfolio of Human Services: I received last week, Minister, you arrogant, out-of-touch—

Ms Flint interjecting—

I received an anonymous—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Both members will resume their seats. I will ask the member for Bruce to withdraw that comment.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Arrogant or out of touch?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, unequivocally you will be withdrawing it.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what I'm withdrawing, Deputy Speaker.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly what you just said.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is arrogant and out of touch and he doesn't reply to correspondence.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asking you to withdraw that immediately.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not withdraw that. We can call the Prime Minister arrogant and out of touch. The minister doesn't reply to correspondence. To my mind that's arrogant and out of touch.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. The member for Boothby on a point of order.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third occasion, and this is probably the least worst example of some really appalling and offensive, genuinely offensive language, that the member has directed towards the minister this morning.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order to—

Mr Hill interjecting—

You haven't got the call yet, Member for Bruce. In order to have some easy flowing going through, I ask that the member for Bruce withdraw that remark for the sake of this chamber.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Minister, I received an anonymous tip-off to my office last week, and I would like your commentary on it—perhaps take it on notice. This was from a mother of two children with severe disabilities who self-manages their NDIS plan. She recently encountered a new Centrelink data-matching bungle she wanted to bring to your attention. Centrelink had begun the process of raising a debt against her under the robo-debt automated debt recovery process for undeclared income. However, as it turns out, this was a series of NDIS payments for her two severely disabled children. She provided the evidence and said, 'Can this not happen again.' But Centrelink said to her very clearly that they were unable to guarantee that this won't happen again, that they have recently expanded the program and that there is no way of forcing the system to recognise NDIA payments for what they are. She was shocked by this and was told to contact the NDIA. She did so. She receives 200 to 300 individual payments into her bank account each year for various NDIA services—reimbursements. Minister, can you rule out this happening to any other Australian? If not, what can be done to fix it? Can everyone in Australia on self-managed care plans now expect robo-debt mark II?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bruce. There are still a couple of minutes, if the minister wishes to respond.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to respond. Firstly, in relation to the member for Bruce, if there's some detail that he can provide me, we will certainly look into that. My experience with these things is that if they're raised and if there has been a genuine problem we can deal with it very quickly. But, of course, members opposite need to actually give us the facts. If they're prepared to give us the facts then we will certainly look into it and ensure that people get the best possible service that they can.

This is a very complicated system that we operate here in Australia, and 5.2 million Australians access it on a regular basis. When problems occur, my department actually cares, I actually care, and we do what we can to fix them. We have a record of doing that. So your coming in here and just raising cases without providing me with the detail, without contacting my office and giving us an opportunity to respond, shows me that you're not particularly concerned about the individual, because, if you wanted to get a result, that is exactly what you would do. That's what I would recommend to members opposite if they actually want to get a result for their constituent.

I have very limited time left to speak, but I do want to go through this complete nonsense about ASL reductions in my department. Can I just explain what we inherited when we came into office. The Labor Party had axed 4,800 people from the Department of Human Services—4,800 people. When the Rudd government was elected, call waiting times on Centrelink phone lines were an average of one minute and 29 seconds. This is in the financial year 2006-07—one minute and 29 seconds. When the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government left office, it was almost 13 minutes. This was the legacy of the Labor Party and their astonishing cuts to the Department of Human Services. That is what they had left for us when we came into office. Of course, we will endeavour to fix it, as we always do. What we are doing to fix it is having an extra 1,250 people staffing our telephone lines—1,250 people—and we're already seeing the results. People are getting significantly better service and they're not getting the busy signals that they had before, whilst getting shorter waiting times on our phone lines. Of course, whilst this is happening, we're also transitioning to new and better ways of people getting services through the Department of Human Services.

We will continue to do that. We've made a $1.2 billion investment in the Welfare Payment Infrastructure Transition Program. That is our flagship digital transformation program—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members opposite are interjecting, but of course they won't know anything about this. They'll know absolutely nothing about it and they'll just throw out all this nonsense, the sort of nonsense that we see from the Labor Party—completely removed from the truth, a completely fact-free zone. So these are the sorts of improvements that we're making to the system, and they are already yielding results.

I'm very proud of what we've been able to achieve in the Department of Human Services. We of course have taken responsibility for fixing up the shambles that we inherited from the Labor Party. It's very hard to make up for 4,800 staff being ripped out of a system. It's very hard to make up for call wait times that, when the Labor Party were in office, blew out to 10 times what they had been. But we have methodically and gradually made improvements to the system, and the Australian people will see the results of those improvements. They're already seeing the results of those improvements, and over time, of course, they will continue to get better.

The member for Boothby asked me about the transition to the new childcare subsidy arrangements. This is an extra $2½ billion dollars into the system, which means that the people who need it most will be able to access more childcare subsidy and those working the most will be able to access more childcare subsidy, and, like all the reforms that we're making, it benefits low- and middle-income Australians.

I'm very pleased to say that that transition is going exceptionally well. I've worked very closely with Minister Birmingham to ensure that, on 2 July, when the new system comes into place, the sector is ready for the new arrangements and Australians can transition to the new arrangements. We've already had 925,000 families register their new arrangements with us. It's a very simple process. You can do it through the Centrelink online app. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes. You're asked four easy questions. I would encourage those who haven't yet registered their new details with us to do so. But the program remains on track for a very successful transition. I thank the member for Boothby for asking me a relevant and sensible question. (Time expired)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Federation Chamber will first consider the Prime Minister and Cabinet and women segments, and then the Indigenous Affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. The minister has the call, and he will be heard in silence because I'm having difficulty hearing.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate that courtesy, because I've actually got very important things to say about the portfolio of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is a good opportunity for me to make this opening statement to the committee to hopefully set the tone and the content of the debate.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio has 14 agencies that receive funding from the government. The 2018-19 budget provided the portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.1 billion in the 2018-19 year. The average staffing level for the portfolio is 5,241. The 2018-19 budget included 11 budget measures led by the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. This includes a number of measures that support key policy initiatives for the government, particularly investment in data, digital transformation, and national and international security.

The government provided funding of $92.4 million in 2018-19 to accelerate the implementation of Govpass, which is our digital identity system and a vitally important building block for our digital future. Govpass will allow people to verify who they are and access government services online in a simple and secure way. The Govpass program is a key component in the ongoing digital transformation of government and supports the government's commitment to better and more accessible digital services. The Digital Transformation Agency will work with relevant agencies to test Govpass across a range of services.

In addition to this, funding of $700,000 is also committed in the 2018-19 year to investigate areas where blockchain technology could offer the most value for government services. Obviously, the potential for blockchain in the way we deliver our services, particularly within the welfare system, is large, and we're very keen to investigate those opportunities. The cost of this measure will be met from within existing resources of the Digital Transformation Agency.

The government will provide further funding to various agencies to more effectively serve Australia's national security needs. In response to the recommendations of the 2017 Independent intelligence review, the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be augmented to oversee the activities of all agencies within the national intelligence community. The Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel will undertake a comprehensive review of the legal framework governing Australia's national intelligence community and related oversight bodies, and the government will establish a joint capability fund to facilitate greater integration of Australia's intelligence capabilities. These reforms build on implementation measures announced at the 2017-18 MYEFO, and they are driven by serious threats to Australia's security and the government's determination to keep Australians safe and secure.

From 2018-19, the government will provide $20.5 million over four years to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This funding will be used to implement new data governance arrangements in line with the recommendations made by the Productivity Commission in its 2017 report Data availability and use. A data sharing and release framework underpinned by legislation will be developed and administered by the newly established National Data Commissioner. These reforms will ensure data safeguards are implemented to build public trust while ensuring the benefits of enhanced sharing and release of data are achieved by the Australian public.

I'm at pains to say that the conversation around data in Australia shouldn't be one that's based on all the risks that are associated with this amazing surge in information that we are living through at the moment. Ninety per cent of the world's information has been created within the past two years, and this creates wonderful opportunities for the Australian government to use that data to better understand what it means for us to make better decisions on behalf of the Australian people

In May 2018 the Prime Minister announced a review of the Australian Public Service to ensure that it is best placed to serve the Australian government and the Australian people into the future. To facilitate this review, we've allocated $9.8 million over two years to undertake this important body of work with the cost being managed within the existing resources of the department.

The government has also allocated funding of $23.3 million over two years to enhance the capability of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This will support PM&C's role in furthering the government's domestic and international policy agendas, including national security, trade, infrastructure and Indigenous affairs. That is the end of my time, and I thank the chamber for the opportunity to outline the things that we are doing— (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the minister for his contribution, and I refer him to his comment that he wants to see by 2025 that Australia will be one of the top three digital governments in the world, boldly going where no Turnbull government minister has gone before—less Keenan and more Shatner! It's very good to see. I look forward to seeing you reach that.

Mr Keenan interjecting—

Yes, I'm showing my age. I can't hide it anymore, Minister!

Given your bold ambition, I want to run through this great list of digital projects. You say you want us to be in the top three governments in digital transformation. Here's the list: the 2016 census; repeated crashes of the ATO website; delayed revamp of the Child Support website; halted the start of online NAPLAN; guillotined gov.au redesign proposal, and wasted nearly a million bucks there; shut the Digital Transformation Office, and then renamed it; waved goodbye to your CEO of the Digital Transformation Office; scored a thumbs down from small business for the over-hyped digital marketplace; saw the arrest of DHS IT contractors for suspected fraud; notched up a record spend on government IT; robo-debt, which no-one can forget; dumped the apprentice IT platform, AAMS; and, in the last few weeks, suspended the ACIC biometric project. That last project is of particular interest because the Biometric Identification Services project between NEC and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission was suspended and staff members escorted off government premises.

From that list of 13, I can't think of any of those instances where the government could build, in the general public, a confidence that it's got digital transformation right, or that they could expect more government services to actually work for them online, instead of having to call or turn up to government premises to get service. On the NEC project, in particular, I want to ask: when did the DTA come to understand that the project was in trouble? When did DTA put that project on its watch list? When the NEC project got into trouble, who did it report that to? Who was involved in the decision to scrap the NEC project? With the additional $60 million for the DTA's digital ID and another $30 million of existing DTA funding reallocated for digital ID, which of the multiple biometric projects is this funding for? Was the NEC project part of the back-end infrastructure of the digital ID rollout? Why are there so many biometric projects running in parallel within government? When did the minister become aware of the NEC biometric project being in trouble? Was the decision to scrap the $90 million project made by the department, the DTA or the cabinet subcommittee?

This NEC project goes to the heart of what is actually happening in DTA, where there's less delivery and more audit functions, but even then they can't keep track of all the projects that are going off the rails. The question I also want answered, and I think the Australian public wants to know, is: if the DTA is supposed to be keeping tabs on all these digital projects, how come it's keeping tabs on them but never intervening to prevent these projects going off the rails?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Representing the government, as I do, as Minister for Women, I'd like to make an opening statement in relation to women. The 2018-19 budget enhances the lives of all Australian women by pursuing practical changes to support opportunity and choice. The government is continuing to put in place the right settings to deliver a stronger economy, to guarantee the essential services that women and Australians rely upon. A stronger economy means that more women are in work now than ever before. A key priority for the government is to provide those right economic settings for women to help them into work and to help them to be able to save, because we know that when they do that they have choices about their lives. I am delighted to be able to confirm that, as Minister for Women, I will be delivering a women's economic security statement later on in the year, in the spring of 2018.

I just want to focus on this fact that we have more women working than ever before. Five point eight million Australian women are now employed in Australia. We are committed to ensuring that they have every opportunity to be able to engage in paid work, to have the right support to expand their skills, to take advantage of new employment opportunities and to be able to save for their retirement. Very specifically, in budget 2018-19 we are making personal income taxes lower, fairer and simpler for all Australians, including women, through our Personal Income Tax Plan; encouraging more women to pursue STEM education and careers by providing $4.5 million over four years; helping women to be able to take advantage of opportunities in the healthcare and social assistance industry, by providing $64.3 million to establish a Jobs and Market Fund to grow the National Disability Insurance Scheme workforce; developing women's financial capability by providing $10 million for initiatives to put women in control of their financial lives now and into the future as part of the financial capability Australia fund. This is a $65 million fund that will work, not only in this government but beyond governments, to provide financial capability and empowerment to those individuals who choose to use it. We all know that from the moment you enter this world to the moment you leave it you are engaging in the financial system. So it's critically important that we give Australian women and men, but specifically Australian women, who don't feel very confident in making financial decisions, as we know from the surveys that we have seen, the toolkit that they need to make the best decisions they can to enhance their choices, their opportunities and their lives.

We know that Australian women are aspirational. They are aspirational for themselves, for their future and for their communities. I know that there are those opposite, perhaps, who might agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—I suppose aspiration mystifies them—but I suspect most of the people in this room would agree that Australian women are aspirational for themselves, for their families and for their communities.

In our budget we are also supporting the national rollout of the Skills Checkpoint for Older Workers Program for women and men between 45 and 70 years of age by providing $3.3 million as part of the More Choices for a Longer Life package. I was very pleased to be able to introduce the legislation today. Very importantly, we are helping to protect the superannuation balances of around two million Australian women with low and inactive accounts from undue erosion by high administration and investment fees and exit fees, making sure that they can have the very most in their retirement savings, making sure that they're not paying high insurance premiums that they either do not want or do not need and, in some cases, cannot even claim upon. I note for the record here that it was very disappointing to find out, as the minister now responsible for superannuation, that the former minister who was responsible for superannuation—that is, the Leader of the Opposition—was the very person who took the decision, at the time that he was responsible, to uncap fees for low balance accounts, which will mean, for some people, tens of thousands of dollars less in their retirement savings and in some cases even hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is particularly devastating for women who have low balance accounts, but I'm happy to report that, through our budget measures, we are protecting them, their retirement income and their retirement savings.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure, given we are speaking about women today, to acknowledge that in the gallery is UK Labour Councillor Erica Lewis. She is well known to many people in this building, not just because of her work with UK Labour, but because of her many, many years with the YWCA right here in Canberra. She is a long-term advocate for women. In great contrast to her work, this government's work in relation to women has been completely panned. In fact, Women's Agenda has said, 'Women have been largely forgotten in the 2018 budget, and there is nothing that directly addresses the economic disadvantage of Australian women.' Fair Agenda, Domestic Violence New South Wales, the National Association of Community Legal Centres and No to Violence said that the level of funding for frontline services was 'bitterly disappointing and potentially dangerous'. There was little in the budget for women and there was very little analysis of how the budget impacts women. The National Foundation for Australian Women said the fact sheets produced were not a gender based analysis but a listing of initiatives that may benefit women, minus any data.

At budget estimates, the Office for Women was unable to answer questions about the gendered impacts of key budget announcements, because they just didn't know. The front page of the economic security fact sheet that the Office of Women produced featured the Personal Income Tax Plan and talked about how it would benefit women. When we asked the office at estimates whether gender analysis had been done on the impact, we were told the office hadn't seen any analysis and we should ask the Treasury. The Treasury said they hadn't done it. Analysis that Labor commissioned from the PBO showed the financial benefits of stage 3 of the package overwhelmingly benefit men. Three-quarters of the tax cut will go to men on high incomes. Minister, why did you put income tax cuts on the front page of your women's economic security fact sheet if they actually benefit men disproportionately? Why isn't the government considering the impact that major economic policy will have on women? Do you think the impact of your income tax cuts are gender neutral, like the Treasurer, Scott Morrison does?

Evidence presented to a Senate inquiry by tax expert Professor Miranda Stewart last week showed that your tax policy, combined with your childcare changes, will create 95 per cent effective marginal tax rates for women returning to work after having children. Professor Stewart said it was extraordinary that second earners went back to work full-time at all. A mother going back to work for a third day will only keep $10 out of every $100 earned that day. If you work a fourth day, you only get $5. The childcare changes are the main policy the government has announced to boost women's workforce participation. The evidence now shows that there will be negligible financial benefits for secondary earners to work an extra day. So I ask the minister: why isn't the government analysing the effective marginal tax rates created by your policies? Do you think it's okay that a woman would only gain $5 for going back to work an extra day? Have you recalculated the workforce participation impact of your Jobs for Families Child Care Package? How can the government claim one of its top priorities in women's policy is boosting workforce participation, when your own policies are creating disincentives for women to return to work?

Just two days before the budget was released, the government leaked a mystery economic security story that they were committing a mystery sum of money to policies that they hadn't decided on yet and that they wouldn't tell anyone about for another five months. Then there was no mention in the budget itself of this mystery policy. Minister, it looks a lot like you realised there was nothing in your budget for women and threw together a last minute announcement to try to save face. Labor welcomes the government finally taking an interest in women's economic security, but your own Office for Women said at budget estimates that the policy is in extreme infancy. So I ask the minister: after five years of coalition government, why do you need another five months to figure out what your women's economic security policy is? How much funding has been set aside in the contingency reserve for your economic statement? Have any actual policies been agreed to, or were you just allocated a lump sum for your last minute policy panic? When will you be announcing your economic security statement? Will you be doing any consultation with stakeholders about what should be in the statement? Will the Office for Women be preparing it?

The Office for Women stated at budget estimates that they didn't produce the women's budget fact sheets published on the Office for Women website. I ask the minister: can you confirm that the women's budget fact sheets were produced by the Treasury? Why weren't they produced by the office? Does the office not have the capacity to produce that gender analysis of the budget? If they were produced by the Treasury as a budget document, why weren't they included on the budget.gov website? There are a range of other questions I would like to ask for women, but I ask the minister to consider these questions at this time.

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

I rise to ask the minister to expand on his earlier comments in relation to the role of government as Australian society moves into the digital age and the clear benefits of government services following closely that trend. I'm particularly interested to hear more about how those benefits are being realised through this government's digital transformation agenda. I'm interested to hear the minister indicate what the main priorities are for the Australian government organisations and government agencies in the next six to 12 months to further drive that digital transformation. Minister, what synergies and collaborations are taking place across the government's agencies and, in particular, what collaborations are taking with other players out there such as businesses, particularly those in the start-up ecosystem?

I attended the Myriad Festival in Brisbane last month. I participated and spoke in a national start-up 'policy hack'. Through participating in that, it became very clear to me and everyone else there, I think, that the government sector can continue to learn a great deal from the experiences and the ideas coming up through our start-up sector when it comes to digital transformation, in terms of culture and new ideas and technologies.

MyGov, the online portal that is the centrepiece of government digital transformation, is becoming the primary way that Australians access government services. I certainly support the idea that, instead of filling out endless paperwork, information can be securely stored and prefilled when users access different forms through myGov and the idea that information can be shared across different government areas of services, including linking services like Centrelink, Medicare and the ATO.

I'd be interested to hear the minister's thoughts on the newer statistics for myGov. The last that I heard was that there are now more than a quarter of a million Australians accessing myGov and making transactions through it every single day. If so, it would mean that usage of that service has more than doubled since I was elected almost two years ago, which would prove beyond doubt that there is clear demand and uptake for digital and online government services.

I'd also be interested to hear more about security and privacy under the government's digital transformation agenda, including the way that users can securely verify their identity using Govpass. I understand that the government is working hard to ensure that these platforms protect the privacy and the security of individual Australians.

I'm also interested in hearing more about the benefits of the government's digital transformation agenda for the many students around Brisbane, especially in terms of the efficiencies and the convenience for the thousands of university students who support their studies and supplement their casual incomes with payments like youth allowance. Indeed, I'd be interested to hear the benefits for all Australians in terms of the efficiencies being created in the delivery of government services and the idea that taxpayers can be assured that their tax dollars are able to go even further as those efficiencies are realised. The last time I checked, it was estimated that myGov had already saved about $100 million for Australian taxpayers since it was rolled out.

I noted in the last Digital government transformation report released by Deloitte that there are even greater efficiencies and cost savings to be found through this work. That report stated that the shift towards digital offerings could eventually lead to cost savings of anywhere up to $20 billion or $30 billion for both federal and state governments around Australia over the next 10 years.

I would also be interested in hearing about what is being done to build the digital skills of the Australian Public Service, which I believe is another key element of our digital strategy. As well as embracing and building the technology, it is vital that Australia's professional Public Service staff are confident and capable in utilising it. I'd be interested to hear more about the government's investment of $13.9 million to attract, build and retain digital talent. I'd be interested to know how many participants have been placed into new digital focused roles across agencies. In particular, are senior executive staff receiving training to ensure that they can help lead from the top in the digital transformation?

Lastly, as my time is running out, I'd be interested to hear more about the work being done to ensure that ICT equipment and tools used by our government represent a high return on investment. There are many small businesses and individuals in Brisbane who are very keen to ensure that we are encouraging competition for government ICT contracts, especially from small and medium-sized Australian organisations. I heard just yesterday from Ken Morris, a constituent in New Farm, on this topic. How have we improved our procurement processes to ensure that we can achieve reduced costs and improved efficiencies? Simultaneously, what are we doing to ensure that Australian providers can offer competitive prices and contracts?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can imagine my disbelief when I heard the member for Brisbane asking the minister to tell students who work casual jobs on the weekend just how great this budget has been for them. Yes, by all means, Minister, do tell them how lucky they are to have myGov. That'll certainly make up for the fact that you're cutting their penalty rates and cutting $2.2 billion out of their university funding! They will be absolutely delighted that you've got an app they can use on the smartphone for which they can't afford the plan: 'Here, have an app. This'll make up for it. Sure, $77 a week is a real shame, students, and sorry about the fact that your universities are having to cost-cut to absorb the $2.2 billion in cuts baked in by this budget. But here's an app, because we're so cool in PMO. We're so great. We do apps. We're hip. We're groovy. We're with it. We're 'young thangs'.' Yes, that's great! Do tell, Minister. Excellent question, Member for Brisbane. I really think that was a fantastic own goal by the member for Brisbane. Let's hear it!

I did mention that I wanted to ask a few more questions about women. We also heard from the APSC at budget estimates that, since the current minister became the Minister for Women, the government hasn't asked for any briefing or advice on Balancing the future: the Australian Public Service gender equality strategy. We also heard that nothing has been done on a number of priorities listed in the strategy, so I ask the minister: is gender equality in the Public Service a priority for you as Minister for Women? Will there still be a review of the Commonwealth maternity leave act, as it's called? Will training still be developed for the APS on the differential impact of gender in mainstream policy development? Will there be a best practice guide in training and managing flexible work arrangements in the APS? And will there be a return-to-work framework for working parents rolled out across the APS?

I also expect that you, Minister, like everyone else in this place, are concerned about the particular vulnerability to violence that women with disabilities have. Minister, $50,000 was allocated to support the National Women's Alliances to engage with the disability sector this financial year. But, a week out from the end of the year, the money hasn't been spent. Minister, have you even decided yet how you'll spend the money and is this now just a year of funding lost for women with disabilities? Finally, on the issue of the Office for Women, why haven't any Women's Leadership and Development Strategy grants been made this financial year?

I also wanted to ask some questions in respect of Prime Minister and Cabinet that don't relate to the Office for Women. The first goes to the $23.3 million in additional funding that, as is shown in Budget Paper No. 2, went to PM&C to enhance the department's capability to provide policy support to the government in domestic and international policy. What weakness in the department's capability was identified that this was meant to address? How was it identified? Was there an external review? Did the Prime Minister indicate dissatisfaction with the capability of the department? The measure description cross-references a measure from the 2017-18 budget called 'Departmental supplementation'. This measure saw PM&C receive $20 million over four years to support the delivery of critical policy advice and assist the government in meeting its objective. What is the difference between the two measures? Was it simply that $20 million over four years wasn't enough to sufficiently enhance the capability of the department?

I also want to ask about outcome 1 in the portfolio budget statement. Page 30 of the 2018-19 portfolio budget statement for PM&C shows that total departmental funding for outcome 1 for the year 2018-19 is $146,022,000. Earlier in the papers, outcome 1 is defined:

Provide high quality policy advice and support to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, Portfolio Ministers and Assistant Ministers including through the coordination of government activities, policy development and program delivery.

If you go back two years, outcome 1 had almost exactly the same definition. The only change is the renaming of parliamentary secretaries as assistant ministers. Yet, when we look at total funding for outcome 1, it is $124,070,000—some $22 million less for the year. To put it another way, departmental funding has increased more than 25 per cent in two years. Did the Prime Minister himself identify this need for extra support? Does the department have any metrics for measuring how much the government's performance has increased following this significant increase in funding? Can the minister explain the increase in funding, given that, as I said earlier, the only apparent change was the renaming of parliamentary secretaries to assistant ministers? I'm sure that was a move appreciated by assistant ministers but not by too many other people.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on this consideration in detail and pay tribute to the Minister for Women and to this government for the many ways in which we are standing up for women and investing in women, whether it's in the workforce, whether it's assisting women with child care or whether it's the very important role of supporting women who are the most vulnerable in our society, those with a disability and of course those who have confronted family violence.

A hallmark of this government is the many ways in which we have invested in the many causes for women. There's one that I was very proud to celebrate just a few weeks ago. With the Treasurer and the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, I visited a new aged-care centre in Grovedale. I was very proud as well to open that aged-care centre a couple of weeks ago when I returned.

While we were visiting the centre, we were celebrating a new program. We have committed $10 million for the Launch into Work program in the 2017-18 budget. It is providing wonderful training, mentoring and work experience to assist women moving into the workforce. There were about 10 women who were recipients under that program. That is 10 new jobs just in one aged-care centre, supported by our government, on the ground, giving the delivery of jobs that we need and focusing on giving women opportunities to return to the workforce. That is just one of the many examples of the way in which we are supporting women in the workforce.

Boosting women's workforce participation is an economic priority for the Turnbull government. We can boost GDP by as much as 13 per cent while strengthening women's economic security. What a celebration we have before us with the coalition's record on promoting women's workforce participation. Women's employment is at a record high of over 5.6 million women in the workforce. Part of that is because of the way that we're also investing in child care. We're making it easier for women to return to the workforce. We've made a historic investment overall of an additional $2.5 billion in child care. This investment is encouraging more than 230,000 families to return to work or increase their paid employment and support early-learning opportunities for children. In the budget, an additional $428 million has been provided to support universal access to preschool in the forthcoming year. We recognise that those 15 hours of kindergarten in preschool years are very important, and we've made a very substantial investment.

One of the very big focuses for women in the workforce and a big focus of our government is in acknowledging the important role that parents play in caring for their children. There are a range of programs and payments to support them. Currently, the government spends a substantial amount of taxpayers money in three main areas of family support—around $19 billion in family tax benefit, a total of around $7 billion all up in childcare support and around $2 billion in paid parental leave. These are very substantial investments—$19 billion alone in family tax benefit. FTB is very important in supporting women and families, particularly when women want to return to work.

I touched earlier on the work that's been done for women affected by family violence. I spent a large part of last year doing an inquiry into family violence law reform and understanding these issues in a lot of depth. The Turnbull government has led the way in investing in women's safety, starting with a $100 million women's safety package, which was announced back in September 2015, and those investments have continued. Making sure that women are safe in their home and in their workplace is an incredibly important focus. I'm particularly proud of the investments. I ask the minister to expand on some of these investments that our government has made.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be a little unusual, but there are two ministers representing the portfolio here and we've got five minutes left, so we might be able to take half the time each to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I'll try and be brief. The member for Brisbane asked me about myGov. MyGov is our flagship platform.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure he's watching from his office as we speak. MyGov has 12 million accounts, and 3½ million of these have been created within the past two years. We're now approaching almost 300,000 logins on myGov on any single day. This is now one of the largest digital services that is offered anywhere in Australia. MyGov has now surpassed most of the major Australian banks in terms of the number of people that use it. We will continue to make improvements to that service to make sure that it provides access to efficient and quick digital services for the Australian people.

This is just one of the things we're doing in the world of digital transformation within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. We have been responsible for some wonderful innovations since we arrived in office. Anyone who uses the SmartGate systems, for example, would understand that we're using facial biometrics and other biometric identification to have seamless travel through our airports. I often point to that as a flagship program for the government, because it shows you what can be achieved by these advances in technology, making sure that passengers, who might have waited up to half an hour in a queue if the past, can now be processed through our major airports in as little as 15 seconds. We're doing it in a way that still means that our borders are kept secure. Another innovation that I'm very keen to point to is the use of virtual assistance at the Australian Taxation Office, and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services is very familiar with this. That means they're available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for Australians who use services from the ATO, and 88 per cent of issues, where they've had interactions with people, have been resolved. This has reduced the inbound calls going to the ATO by 15 per cent, meaning that people who are calling in can now have a better chance of getting through. I'd happily go on, but in line with what I said in my opening remarks, I will yield to the minister for revenue.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm here in my capacity as Minister for Women. I'd first like to respond to the words and the questions of the member for Corangamite. I might just take the opportunity to commend her for her very strong advocacy for the women in her community, and her particularly strong commitment to making sure that women can be safe in their homes, in their workplaces and in their communities. She would probably be very aware of the fact that we as a government have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to violence against women. We have maintained a very strong commitment. The government has provided around $300 million to support women's safety initiatives.

I want to draw the attention of the member for Corangamite to particular initiatives announced in this budget. We have $54.4 million committed to serving women who are affected by violence, and for online safety initiatives, including $11.5 million for the national sexual assault domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT; $6.7 million to maintain funding for domestic violence alert, DV-alert, to continue its domestic violence response training for community front line workers, and we know how effective and important that program is; and $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace much safer for women. She is doing incredible work and certainly the work that she is engaged in is world-leading.

I'd like to respond to a couple of the questions from the member for Griffith. The member for Griffith asked about gender equity in the Public Service. I'm incredibly pleased to be able to notify the member for Griffith of the fact that the fifty-fifty target for secretaries, for those people who lead our departments, is now gender equal. We have got 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women who lead our departments in the Australian Public Service. We have been able to achieve that fantastic target under a Liberal coalition government, under the Turnbull government. It demonstrates our incredibly strong commitment to seeing women equally represented in all aspects of public life. We see that in the Australian Public Service as well. And we have a deep commitment—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd love to respond to these questions, but I'm conscious of time. It would be nice to have some respect for women who are actually trying to listen to these answers.

We have a deep understanding of how important it is to be able to encourage women back into the workforce and to ensure that, for instance, Australian public servants who want to return to work have got a very supportive environment. As someone who nursed children and returned to work at a fairly early stage, I'm conscious, probably more than most, of the need to have an environment in the Australian Public Service where nursing mothers can be supported. That is why I'm very pleased that we are conducting a review of the Australian Public Service to make sure that those facilities are available to women who are returning to work so that they don't have to choose between work and their children; they can in fact do both.

I'm also very happy to respond—if I'm given just a little more time—to the member for Griffith. I note that, when it comes to women's leadership funding, she's quite right to point out that we haven't yet hit the end of the financial year. All of the money has, in fact, been expended. There will be announcements made in relation to that funding. I'm not going to make them now, but I know she will be very interested when those funding announcements are made before the end of the financial year.

I'm very pleased to also respond to her question about the gender neutrality of our taxation system. I find it rather ironic that that question is coming from those opposite. They talk about the impact of taxation on women. I'm really quite intrigued by this, because they have announced a megatax on retirees that would absolutely punish women. It would have a disproportionate impact on women. It would affect 30 per cent more women. With this claim from those opposite that they care about women and the tax consequences for women, they might like to examine their megatax on retirees, which is something that they have put on the table and that all women in this country— (Time expired)

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. The Federation Chamber will now consider the Indigenous affairs segment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio, in accordance with the agreed order of consideration.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. As pointed out by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Transformation, the 2018-19 budget provide the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio with appropriations for ordinary annual services of $2.1 billion in 2018-19. Of the total appropriations for the portfolio, $1.6 billion relates to Indigenous affairs, with funding provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land Corporation.

This year's budget is delivering for First Australians by investing in reducing homelessness and in boosting job growth, economic development, and health and safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The investment of $5.1 billion across the forward estimates in the Indigenous Advancement Strategy demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to improving Indigenous wellbeing. The Indigenous Advancement Strategy is delivering funding on the ground, in partnership with communities, and is ensuring children are attending school, adults are in employment and communities are safe.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is the policy lead for four measures that impact on Indigenous affairs. Firstly, the Commonwealth government is providing $550 million for remote Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory over five years. With the matched commitment from the Northern Territory government, this represents the largest yearly investment in housing in the NT and follows the $1.7 billion invested over the last 10 years, which yielded 1,500 new houses, creating local jobs and employment. The investment will target the high levels of overcrowding in remote NT and will provide jobs and apprenticeships for local Indigenous people.

The Community Development Program will be reformed under this budget. In partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the government will support more Indigenous Australians into work and improve the lives of and outcomes for jobseekers in remote Australia and in the communities in which they live. Jobs provide benefits well beyond financial independence. They further develop a person's skills and training opportunities, and they contribute significantly to a person's health, wellbeing and social outcomes. The reforms of the Community Development Program are designed to stimulate the remote economy and provide employment outcomes in remote Australia. They are a direct response to feedback from First Australians, following consultations with jobseekers, communities and Indigenous leaders, and responses to the government's discussion paper on the future of the program. These reforms recognise that remote jobseekers have varying capabilities and need tailored support while they move along a pathway to work. The reforms will also look to improve the experience for remote jobseekers as they move through the program. The government will work with local communities to introduce 6,000 new subsidised jobs, and these jobs will create a genuine pathway into work and off welfare.

Delivering on the Prime Minister's announcement in his Closing the Gap address, the budget incorporates the creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. This fund will improve the investment opportunities and turn a yield of the $2 billion currently invested in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account. These changes will enable the Indigenous Land Corporation to deliver on its purpose in the long-term—that is, to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to acquire and manage land. The management by the Future Fund Board of Guardians and the change in investment strategy provide scope for the fund to be $1.5 billion better off over the coming 20 years, when compared to current investment parameters. The government will also expand the functions of the Indigenous Land Corporation to include water rights, in order to bring ILC in line with traditional understandings of country. Nationwide consultations found overwhelming support for these reforms to the land account and for the expansion of the remit of the ILC to water. The government's bills were co-designed and supported by the ILC board.

I also want to highlight that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies will receive $2 million over the next two years to scope and commence activity relating to the repatriation of culturally significant items from overseas.

The government is working to achieve our aspiration that all Australians have equal opportunities. The budget is further evidence of this commitment. Thank you for this opportunity to set out some of the highlights of this year's Indigenous Affairs budget measures and to give a brief insight into how they will benefit our community and our economy.

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

The 2018 budget demonstrates the neglect of First Nations peoples by this government. Most Closing the Gap targets will not be met. I think three out of seven were on track and the others will not be met. There is no clear identification of what this refresh program of the Closing the Gap strategy is. We do not know what it means, and the government cannot explain it. Despite the efforts of First Nations people and our peak organisations trying their best to cooperate with government, the Closing the Gap strategy has been left to languish under this government, while the gap widens. There has been no refunding of the Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023.

In this year's budget, the budget papers make clear that there is no further funding for the National Partnership on Remote Housing, which is going to be an absolute disaster as the years roll on. In 2008 the then Labor government entered into a National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, aimed at tackling overcrowding and poor living conditions in remote communities. According to the review of the program, by 2018 the strategy will have delivered 4,000 new houses and 7,500 refurbishments. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in overcrowding in remote communities, and that is very important for child safety and for health outcomes. The review suggested that this would fall further, down to 37.4 per cent in 2018.

It has been over a year since the historic gathering at Uluru and the release of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It's been nearly a year since the Referendum Council released its final report into constitutional recognition. The aspiration of First Nations people is to have a greater say in the decisions of this place as well as a voice to parliament. It is bitterly disappointing that the government has already rejected this proposal and has put forward the scandalous notion that somehow this would be a third chamber to the parliament. Of course, the very idea is never to challenge the sovereignty of this parliament in terms of a First Nations point. The government has claimed misleadingly that it will be a third chamber. That is certainly not the way in which it is being perceived. Labor has pushed for a joint parliamentary committee to do further work on this issue in the hope that there can be a future of bipartisanship and a return to bipartisanship.

I am pleased that the government finally agreed to establish the committee, but it took some doing and only happened in the very last minutes of the parliament. In the hearings of this committee First Nations people have reiterated their desire for a more meaningful say on the issues that affect their lives—our lives. They continue to call for a voice to the parliament and a makarrata commission to oversee a process of truth-telling and agreement-making. I ask the government these questions, and I would very much appreciate the minister in the chair, the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, answering these questions. I ask the government to approach this issue through committee in good faith and with goodwill.

My questions are: will the government return to bipartisanship and join with Labor to support the aspirations of First Nations people? Is there any hope of this government's supporting calls for a voice to the parliament? Is there any chance of this government's supporting calls for a makarrata commission to oversee the process of truth-telling and agreement-making? Given that these were the recommendations of the most significant consultation with Indigenous people ever undertaken, what proposals is the government willing to consider? These questions are incredibly important and must be answered by the government through the minister.

There is a significant consultation process being undertaken by the joint select committee. The worst thing that could possibly happen is that the aspirations of First Nations people be raised once again only to be dashed by government decisions that do not back in those aspirations. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said he wants to do things with Aboriginal people, not to Aboriginal people. What goes to the heart of this point is actually fulfilling the aspirations, clearly articulated by not only the Aboriginal community but the business community and civil society, that there must be a voice and involvement of Aboriginal people to the deliberations of this parliament without challenging the sovereignty of this parliament.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my electorate of Murray the largest population centre is the city of Shepparton. It has an urban population of around 50,000 people when you take into account its twin city of Mooroopna. Shepparton has Victoria's second-largest Aboriginal population after Melbourne, and the concentration of Indigenous Australians is the second-largest of any Victorian city and four times the national average. The Greater Shepparton area holds significant Aboriginal cultural heritage and is among the most culturally diverse communities in regional Victoria. Historically, there were eight tribes that now fall under the Yorta Yorta banner. In the state parliament there are registered Aboriginal parties—at the moment that status is held by the Yorta Yorta nations. There has been some serious consternation about that in relation to the role of the Bangerang, and whether the Bangerang is a nation within itself or simply a clan of the Yorta Yorta nation. I have continually met with Indigenous leaders of both the Bangerang and the Yorta Yorta.

There have been many great Indigenous leaders whose origins lie within Murray, possibly none greater than Sir Douglas Nicholls. Sir Doug Nicholls had a historic rise throughout his life. He was an outstanding athlete, he was a VFL footballer for Fitzroy, he served in the military and he became a pastor. A genuine leader of his people, along with his uncle William Cooper, he led many of the Aboriginal rights protests and was able to play a significant role in Indigenous affairs.

Sir Douglas Nicholls was named Victorian Father of the Year in 1962. He was the second Aboriginal justice of the peace. He was crowned King of Moomba in 1973. And in 1976 Sir Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor of South Australia, and he played a significant role there until he passed away in Mooroopna in 1988. Yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission announced the Victorian redistribution of federal divisions, and the seat of Murray will in future be known as Nicholls. So, if I am privileged enough to be here after the next election, I will be known as the member for Nicholls.

To paint the picture around Shepparton, it's worth realising how many significant leaders we have at the moment. I recently met with Clint and Miranda Edwards from the Bangerang 'keeping place'. They have some serious challenges to be able to maintain their cultural centre on the same site. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, has offered to help them work out whether it is best to leave the Bangerang Cultural Centre where it is or to start planning for a future where the amazing diorama there is moved to a more prominent site.

We also have outstanding leadership in Paul Briggs, who leads the Rumbalara Football Netball Club. Associated with that is the Rumbalara Aboriginal Co-operative, which offers a whole range of health and social benefits. Rumbalara plays a really important role within the dynamic of Shepparton and Mooroopna because it offers a place where the Indigenous people are the mainstream, the majority. It takes away this concept that Indigenous people in mainstream Australia always find themselves as the minority. When they go to a football club that is predominantly Indigenous, then they are certainly in the majority. That is something that Rumbalara has achieved. It has made some amazing social gains through people having their own football netball club. Also associated with the work that Paul Briggs is doing is the Kaiela Institute, which has become a great advocate for a whole raft of Indigenous people and their areas. It supports a collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders to design and implement the future for people throughout the Goulburn-Murray region.

Can the minister provide an update on the Closing the Gap targets throughout the seat of Murray?

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2008 the then Labor government established the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, aimed at tackling overcrowding and poor living conditions in remote communities in Australia. The review of the program highlighted that, by 2018, the strategy would have delivered 4,000 new houses and 7,500 refurbishments. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded houses in remote and very remote areas, falling from 53.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15. The review suggested this would fall further, to 37.4 per cent, by 2018.

The review also found that the targets in the strategy to create job opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have resulted in many success stories around local employment, business and training. Local employment, especially in the areas of repair and maintenance, can improve the housing program's efficiency and effectiveness and, if properly organised, can support the core priority of delivering and maintaining quality housing.

In addition, 5,500 homes are required by 2028, to reduce levels of overcrowding in remote areas to acceptable levels. The review also found that the first priority for government is to protect their investments and increase the longevity of houses by maintaining the houses already delivered. In this year's budget, it is very clear that there is no further funding for the National Partnership on Remote Housing from July 2018. Instead, the government will provide $550 million over five years for remote housing in the Northern Territory.

These are the questions that I have for the minister. Can you please confirm that there is no funding allocated in the budget for remote housing in Western Australia, South Australia or Queensland?

Can you confirm whether any transitional funding has been provided in those jurisdictions after 1 July? Is there any provision within the contingency reserve for such an eventuality? If so, how much has been provisioned? In the Indigenous affairs minister's press release on budget night it was claimed that negotiations remain ongoing with Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland; however, the Commonwealth remains hopeful of reaching an agreement with these jurisdictions soon. Can you tell me where the negotiations are up to? Who is leading those negotiations? Is it the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or is it Treasury? Are you still confident of reaching an agreement? Will agreement be reached by 1 July?

You have indicated in the past that you would match state commitments. Are you still committed to matching any state contribution put forward? Have any financial contributions been put forward by those states? In April this year the Queensland government wrote to the Commonwealth indicating that it would be willing to put $1.08 billion into remote housing. Given you have indicated that you would match funding, why have you not agreed to match the Queensland contribution? In the past you have said that you are not walking away from the project of tackling overcrowding in remote housing. Will you now admit that this government, at least in WA, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, has done just that? Given that there is no funding in the budget for remote housing in these jurisdictions, does the minister have a plan to meet the anticipated need for 2,700 homes required in WA, South Australia and Queensland to reduce overcrowding to an acceptable level? Do you have any plan at all to address these issues or meet these targets? Will you admit that you are walking away from remote communities in these states? The review also indicates that the No. 1 priority should be upkeep of existing housing stock. Do you have any funding available or plans for this? If not, are you concerned about deterioration? How will you address this issue?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask some questions today about the government's support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy's Children and Schooling Program. Having access to a high-quality education is absolutely vital to opening up the greatest possible job opportunities for the next generation. I know there's still a bit of work to do to improve academic outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. However, progress has been made over the past 10 years. We've seen the gap narrow across all NAPLAN areas. The Closing the Gap target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track, with improvements across all states and territories. In 2006 less than half of all Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds had achieved year 12 or an equivalent. Ten years later, this has increased to more than 65 per cent, and indicators point to this progress continuing. Education and development are critical to our children's success, because they are our future leaders, thinkers and entrepreneurs. So my question is: what is the government doing to support children as they progress along the education pathway, including in both school and university?

I also know that we need to be investing in our young people before they start school. We need to ensure that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families that every child in these communities receives quality early education and care, which is critical to development, future school participation and success. I know that the minister has, as I have, seen examples of models, particularly in the remote areas of Western Australia, where the difference early education and learning makes to a young child's life is truly remarkable. So I'm interested in the minister advising how the government is improving Indigenous early childhood outcomes.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister some questions around Closing the Gap. It's certainly clear that there are a number of targets that are not being met, and we are most definitely not on track to close the gap. I, like many members in the parliament, stand year after year after year reporting yet again on the failure of governments to meet these targets. I'm very happy to report that we are on track in infant mortality, year 12 completion rates and early childhood enrolment, which the previous speaker was referring to. They are the three most promising targets.

What is particularly concerning is that there has been no new funding allocated to the Closing the Gap strategy. That is despite the government announcing a 10-year refresh process back in February this year. That is a gross oversight, when we have failed to meet these targets year in, year out, and you have not a single new dollar attached to any efforts to ensure those targets are met in the future. No fancy word like refresh makes up for the fact that there's not a single new dollar allocated to achieve these ends. The fact that government has failed to allocate adequate funding to Closing the Gap is not just something that should outrage each and every Australian, it should outrage each and every member and senator in the Australian parliament, and it is insulting to First Nations peoples. Indeed, their peak organisations are living the impacts of this failure every day of their lives and are seeking to find remedies and redress, but they are doing so with their hands tied behind their backs, because they lack adequate resources and funds to do so.

The Closing the Gap strategy has been left to, effectively, languish under this government while that gap is widening. Further, the government has, yet again, failed to fund the implementation plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-23. I'm sure my colleague, the member for Macarthur, will probably have some comments to make on that and what that means when you do not fund a First Nations health plan in this country.

There's a very clear message from First Nations peoples that they need to be more involved in the policy design and implementation processes here in Australia. This is something that has been grossly lacking. I might just remind the minister and members opposite that it is two years now since the Prime Minister stood up in this parliament to make a commitment—we all remember it well—he said it was time to stop doing things to Aboriginal people. He said that time had passed and we were entering into an era of doing things with First Nations people. When I heard those words in the parliament I thought, 'Fantastic. This government has finally arrived at a place where they understand the requirement for a genuine partnership with First Nations peoples in order to make good on the intent of the Closing the Gap strategy.' But it is time that government deeds matched those words, because that's what we fail to see.

I've got some questions for the minister. We've got the government's announcement of the 10-year refresh process in February this year. Can you please inform us of the progress since the last hearings and the timing going ahead? When is the anticipated date for launching the agreed refresh? I understand that at the COAG discussions the state and territory ministers are engaged on an ongoing basis. Is that correct? Have you engaged with state and territory ministers on proposed new targets? Have you met with them on these issues? Is there any correspondence with ministers that you could provide on this issue? Could you please explain how any new targets, when they're agreed to and finalised, will be funded, given there's no forward funding identified in the budget papers? Will there be a new budgetary process for that purpose or any new funding? (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask some questions of the minister about this government's support for the Indigenous business sector, which is growing and thriving under the policies of the Coalition government. Could the minister please advise how the government is supporting the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who are seeking to start a small business and to grow that business? Because the coalition is the friend of small business. I think about when I get around my electorate and talk to Indigenous—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:29 to 12:42

As I was saying before the debate was interrupted by the division, the coalition is very focused on small business and is a friend of small business. The government's responsible economic management allows us to put in place policy settings that will allow small businesses to prosper and grow. The government is very aware of the barriers that face many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women in getting into small business and growing their small businesses, so we want to support that to occur. That is why the government has been following its Indigenous procurement strategy, which was introduced in July 2015, to try to encourage support for more Indigenous businesses so that we get more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women running their own business, growing their business and, hopefully, employing more Indigenous Australians—and non-Indigenous Australians for that matter.

Several months ago, Minister Scullion and I met with one of the new generation of Indigenous business leaders, Kristal Kinsela, a great young Aboriginal woman, a director of a business—one of the over 1,000 businesses that have benefitted from the Indigenous Procurement Policy. Kristal, who lives and works in my electorate of Cowper—she's based in Port Macquarie—is running a very successful business which is getting local Indigenous jobseekers into work. It's a great news story, Minister. Kristal is a very dynamic young businesswoman and very focused. She has told me that the Indigenous procurement strategy is having a profound impact on getting more Indigenous Australians off the misery of welfare and into the dignity of work by operating their own businesses. That is great news.

Kristal was also selected as one of the delegates to present to COAG last February on the refresh of the Closing the Gap targets. She argued passionately for the need for all states and territories to follow the Commonwealth's lead in supporting Indigenous businesses. It's very pleasing that, some months after this, the coalition government in New South Wales announced that they were following the lead of the Commonwealth and introducing their own state-based Indigenous procurement strategy. My question to the minister is: could he please provide an update on the Indigenous Procurement Policy; and what other policies is the government going to introduce to help grow the Indigenous business sector?

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.

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