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

I have circulated an amendment in the chamber, as I indicated I would. The Greens oppose schedule 3 and seek to exclude it from the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009. As an aside, could I suggest to the government: could you do a bit better naming of some of these bills, because we have the ‘further 2008 budget measures’ and I am sure that soon we will have the ‘other further amendments’ and then the ‘other, other further amendments’. It does make it easier for us poor legislators if the names are slightly different.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all part of a cunning plan.

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

Yes, I suspected as much. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5822:

(1)    Schedule 3, page 7 (lines 2 to 16), TO BE OPPOSED.

I think I articulated in my speech on the second reading that we are concerned that this is not the right approach to dealing with CDEP. We acknowledge that changes are needed but we think that this is not the right way to go. We do not support moving people onto income support, because in Aboriginal communities the very real sense of having a job is very important. I have spoken to a lot of people who articulate that very clearly. They feel that having a job helps their self-esteem and helps their standing in the community. Putting people onto Work for the Dole, into work experience or onto income support undermines that. We do not think this is the right way to go. We think that there should be greater emphasis on addressing the issue I was talking about earlier: adult education and providing more resources for that. That is particularly important because funding is not available through the TAFE system for basic literacy and numeracy, which is absolutely essential before people can take on other training. This is the consistent message around Australia. We need to address that, and states and territories need to address this as well. I am not trying to let them off the hook. They need to be accrediting those courses, providing funding and making sure that education is accessible to all those who want it and not just through what we see as traditional primary or secondary education. That is not working in many communities. Instead of trying to make Aboriginal communities meet the requirements of that strict approach, we need to be much more flexible and provide those resources, education and training support for communities.

I do not want to speak on behalf of the committee, but I know that that is very strongly felt by the members of our committee. We may disagree a little bit on how to go about it, but it is one of the key issues coming out of communities wherever we go. We need to address issues around better directed skills and training. We do not think the changes to CDEP cut the mustard. They do not meet communities’ needs. That is why we are opposing schedule 3. We are saying to the government: please look at this issue again. We do not think it is going to help. We think it is going to make the situation worse. People are feeling undervalued and undermined by the changing of this scheme.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for her contribution. I know she feels very strongly about this and has a very strong commitment to Indigenous people and their welfare and opportunities in our community. But, obviously, the government will be opposing the amendment and insisting on the schedule as proposed. I think we are all aware that reform is needed in the CDEP area. I think the tension that came to exist between the community development objectives and the employment objectives for Indigenous people resulted in a scheme that was not delivering as much as it should and can. This reform is designed to ensure that we continue support for communities, their developments and the services that they need but it is also designed to make a real effort to ensure Indigenous people have opportunities for—I do not want to use the word ‘mainstream’—employment that is fully paid and properly recognised in the mainstream economy, if you like. I think this reform is important in trying to balance those tensions that existed in the CDEP scheme to get the best result for Indigenous people.

There were certainly barriers to people moving into employment opportunities under the way the previous scheme was operating. We all recognise that. Good people and good work were not being recognised, were not being awarded appropriately and were being denied opportunities to move into other employment opportunities. So this is an attempt to get a better balance in the community development objectives but also to make sure that Indigenous people get the proper training, education and employment opportunities that they deserve and to make sure that there are not barriers or disincentives or false signals in the system that prevent them getting those opportunities. We think this will make a difference. I note Senator Siewert’s contribution and I am sure there will be a lot of effort put into monitoring and assessing the experience in this area. We will obviously be open to feedback, but we think this is an important change and we would appreciate the support of the Senate.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I waited for the government to speak because I was only just provided with the amendments—literally just as you were speaking and sat down, Senator Siewert. So I actually had not seen the amendment. There is no mystery in that. I am just saying that—

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

It was circulated.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I had not seen it, in any event. It has only just been placed in front of me. All of the things Senator Siewert said are right, but the reason I will not be supporting the amendment is that, if we are moving people who are inappropriately placed or who are in a program that is not working, then it is quite clear that we need appropriate programs in those communities. Like you, Senator Siewert, we will be looking very carefully at those, at what the government’s intentions and activities are in that area. I will be as rigorous as you in that direction. The principal reason we will not be supporting the amendment is that it does not deal with introducing any of those things or any of those sorts of programs. The government has put on the record their intent in this area—and I thank the minister for that. We will be monitoring their activities in that regard.

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

Can I just respond to Senator Scullion briefly. I do not know why Senator Scullion did not receive the amendments. They were circulated in the chamber earlier in the week, because I did not want to surprise people. So I am not sure what happened there.

I would also like to ask the government if they could ask the department to speed up an answer to a question I asked at estimates—which, I understand, the department took on notice—which was about access to the 25 specialist Indigenous job service providers. It would be very handy to get access to that information. I raised this during my speech in the second reading debate: there are 4,000 people who are about to move off CDEP, and I would like to get an understanding of where the 25 providers are and whether they are going to be able to service those 4,000 people. I am not having a go. I asked this at estimates only two weeks ago. But, if you could speed up that answer, that would be much appreciated.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just about to be helpful, Senator Siewert, when I was advised that it was a question to DEEWR and is actually their responsibility. But I will still try and be helpful. I will ask Ms Macklin’s office to ring DEEWR and ask someone from the department or the minister’s office to ring you and, if they cannot give you the answer, at least tell you when you are going to get it.

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

Thank you. I am not going to prolong this any longer than necessary. I thank the minister for that. I must say that this is one of the issues that we constantly come up against. This is one of the reasons we so like the cross-portfolio estimates process. I acknowledge that this is DEEWR—and I am not having a go about the fact that you cannot answer the question and cannot make a promise on behalf of DEEWR—but the fact is that this bill deals with DEEWR and FaHCSIA, and it is very difficult trying to debate an issue when there is one department here and not the other when this crosses both portfolios. This is an issue that comes up all the time when we are dealing with Aboriginal issues. I am not having a go. I am just trying to continue to bring up with government the issue that it is very difficult to deal with—when we are talking about CDEP but we cannot get access to answers because it is another department that implements it. Then you bring in Human Services and Centrelink and it is another whole department. It is extremely difficult sometimes to get to the bottom of issues in one go, because we are continually having to go back to another department.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly, I do not share the senator’s love of the joint Senate estimates process. In my view, I am not sure that it works. I take her point, but I do make the point that the alternative is for the government to seek to make one agency deliver all services to Indigenous people and see us develop the sorts of problems we developed with ATSIC of underfunded services. I strongly believe in mainstreaming and making all departments deliver to Indigenous people as citizens of this country. As long as we look to do that—which I think is a shared objective—we are going to have the problem about departmental accountability. But the answer still is that we will ask Ms Macklin’s office to ring DEEWR and get them to ring you. The answer may well be unsatisfactory, but you will have an answer as to when you are likely to get the information you are seeking.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.