Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I have also tabled the shadow report in responding to this statement for the last number of years, so I appreciate the opportunity to table it again It is very important that we see the opinions of organisations that are working outside of the government on whether we are closing the gap or not. I would first like to comment on the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap statement, some of the issues that were addressed in it and what was left off. It was very disappointing that the Closing the Gap statement did not address the very significant issues and the very high rates of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this country. It was completely fascinating that that issue was not addressed—I will come back to this issue particularly—nor was the issue of the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes. The funding for this program runs out in 2013. While I acknowledge that there is currently work being done on the Indigenous health plan, I know that it is one of the issues that comes up in the shadow report,whose most prominent recommendation is that that issue needs to be addressed. But that was not addressed in the Closing the Gap statement. I would have thought that, given the importance of closing the gap, given the importance of this statement, that issue would have been addressed in the Prime Minister's statement.

One of the other issues that is touched on in the statement but does not lead to a sense of security in terms of the impact that this particular program is having is addressing the enrolment of children in preschool and in school. While the numbers of kids that go through the door and then enrol are counted, we are still not getting a measure of what impact that is having. What are the genuine progress indicators, and what are the genuine outcomes that are coming out of that program while the government fails to address issues such as hearing loss and the impact of otitis media on the these children? You can get the children into the classroom; but, unless they are addressing those issues and enabling those children to catch up because of the impact of the hearing loss, we are not going to get the significant benefits from that program.

The other things that the Prime Minister conveniently did not address were the issues around income management. Since this place rose at the end of last year, we have had two reports that are very significant when we are talking about the impacts of income management. Of course, income management was continued under the Stronger Futures program and it has also been continued under separate legislation. The evaluation of the new income management, which was released at the end of last year, said:

The report shows that there is no measureable and clear evidence of any positive impact of income management. Those who do support the scheme tend to do so because of benefits such as fee-free banking, similar benefits they receive through voluntary income management or Centrepay arrangements.

A small number perceived that it increased their ability to purchase food, but there was no reduction in the extent to which they report running out of food. Furthermore, the evaluation says, 'Although there have been some strong perceptions of wellbeing of children in the community, such perceptions do not necessarily line up with objective data.' It says, 'There is little evidence to date that income management is resulting in widespread behavioural change either with respect to building an ability to effectively manage money or to building socially responsible behaviour.' It says, 'Indigenous people in NTER areas felt significantly more discriminated against than those in the contrast group; for many there is a strong sense of having been treated unfairly and being disempowered.' So here is a report, after five years of income management in various guises, saying, 'Sorry, there is no effective evidence.' Then a report came out just last week from the ANAO on the administration of income management in the Northern Territory. Firstly, it says the cost per person per year in remote areas is $6,600-$7,900. I tell you what: there are many people that have said to me that they can think of better ways of spending that money to the better advantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That is a lot of money for a program that there is no evidence works. Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister does not address those issues in the Closing the Gap report? Here is one massively expensive program—over $410.5 million over the next six years is budgeted for this program. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister does not mention in her Closing the Gap speech when it does not work and that nearly half a billion dollars could be spent on much better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

I would like to come to the shadow report, which looks at the progress of these indicators. The key highlighted recommendation that Close the Gap campaign steering committee calls for is that the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous health outcomes be renewed to ensure policy and program continuity past 2013 with funding maintained at least the same as allocated in 2012-13 when adjusted for inflation. That is absolutely critical. They also call for a systemic national approach to social determinations and, very importantly, Closing the Gap and related programs to be quarantined from budget cuts across all federal, state and territory jurisdictions. And they are very concerned about the reported recent cuts. Of course, the federal government did cut funding to Aboriginal programs in order to pay for Stronger Futures. So we are seeing Aboriginal programs—some of the leadership programs and other programs—that have been cut because of Stronger Futures.

In the shadow report under 'Progress against the COAG Closing the Gap Targets' there are comments about meeting the early childhood targets. They say:

While in absolute terms the overall trend is to increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander longevity, the capacity of these gains to close the gap remains an issue.

If current trends continue, under-five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mortality rates may fall within the range of the COAG Target to halve the gap in under-five mortality by 2018. However the relative lack of progress in recent years and the widening differential on the critical factor of low birth weight cause concern.

Other areas that remain a concern include the level of investment in ongoing health programs. Again, that is why they are calling so much for a commitment by government now to funding the ongoing health program. They say:

When the significantly greater need for health services resulting from poorer health status is factored in (the Campaign Steering Committee estimates this is at least double as a general rule) the relative lack of total funding available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health is evident.

Of course, this issue was not addressed in the government's Closing the Gap statement.

The government need to be looking at what they are investing in and what programs they are currently taking up to address closing the gap, because their current programs are misguided. The government refuse to really deal with the significant policy measures that are needed. And today we had the government coming out and saying that they were going to get tough on the licensees in Alice Springs. That is great; they have needed to do that for a very long time. They have had the Stronger Futures legislation for eight months, and they are only now starting to look at whether they can use it—when, clearly, they could use that program. That was put in place, supposedly, to do that.

The government still refuse to look at some of the key issues that communities are calling for—that is, a minimum floor price; looking at takeaway-free days in the Northern Territory and Alice Springs; and looking at reducing the number of licences that exist. These policy measures have been consistently called for by the community and this government have refused to do anything about them. Rather, they continue with flawed programs for which there is absolutely no evidence base. How many more reports do they need to show that income management does not work?