Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Peris, McLucas and Dastyari today relating to funding for Indigenous programs and to the regulation of financial services.

Before I speak, I seek leave to table page 185 of Budget Paper No. 2, which confirms a cut to Indigenous programs of over half a billion dollars.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at this stage.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted at this point in time, Senator Peris. You have been invited to resubmit that request at a later time.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I rise to take note of answers to questions asked today in relation to the Abbott government's cuts to Indigenous programs. I have spoken previously about how the budget adversely affects Indigenous Australians right across the board. I have spoken about how the GP co-payment will undermine this nation's attempt to close the gap. I have spoken about how $80 billion in cuts to education and health will affect Indigenous Australians the most, given the gap in education and health outcomes.

I have spoken about the lack of essential infrastructure in the bush and how the Northern Territory is getting less than half of one percent of the nation's infrastructure budget over the next seven years. I have spoken about how the cuts to the local government financial assistance grants will hurt most in the bush, in councils and shires. I have spoken about Wadeye, the largest Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, where petrol is currently over $3 a litre and how any further increase in the petrol price through the new fuel tax will hit people in the Territory the hardest.   

I have spoken about how the cuts to Aboriginal legal services will lead to an increase in the already appalling rate of Indigenous incarceration in this nation. Programs that have been proven to reduce repeat offending are being hit. I have spoken about how the Prime Minister—who talks about being the Prime Minister for Aboriginal Australians—has not backed his words with his deeds. But it is not just me and other members of the Labor Party who have criticised this budget for the effect it will have on Indigenous Australians. There are many, many others.

Dr Lesley Russell, an associate professor from the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at the University of Sydney, has prepared a comprehensive analysis in a paper titled Impact of the 2014-15 federal budget on Indigenous programs and services. I recommend that all members interested in improving the lives of Indigenous Australians read this paper. I will read briefly from the introduction:

Indigenous Australians will be hit hard by the 2014‐15 Budget. Already among the poorest, sickest and most marginalised, Indigenous Australians are hit twice: by cuts to specific programs totalling $603.0 million/5 years and cuts and changes to a wide swathe of general programs in health, education, welfare and legal services. Together these will exacerbate Indigenous disadvantage and set back the already difficult task of Closing the Gap.

The paper points out that $165 million is being cut from Indigenous health. How will that possibly help close the gap in life expectancy for Indigenous Australians?

In February this year the Prime Minister said, in relation to this nation's attempts to close the gap, that 'people's lives are not improving or not improving fast enough.' This budget does nothing to address his words. Unlike under the previous government, there is no specific budget paper on closing the gap. There has been absolutely no assessment—I repeat: no assessment—undertaken of the potential effects on the Closing the Gap targets as a result of this budget. And it is wrong.

There is also a great deal of uncertainty over the future of Aboriginal Australians as the government merges 150 programs into just five programs. Everything is up in the air. No Indigenous programs have a guarantee to continue beyond the next six to 12 months. This means that, without any guarantee of ongoing funding, front-line organisations will lose valuable and often irreplaceable professional staff. It is also disturbing that it appears that this is just the start. The Prime Minister's adviser on Indigenous affairs, Mr Warren Mundine, has called for further cuts. He wants another $600 million cut. It is extraordinary that his job is to advise the Prime Minister on Indigenous affairs but instead he is doing the government's bidding. Warren Mundine is the chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. But there are 12 members of this council, and I urge the Prime Minister to take advice from all members of the council, because I can guarantee—and I know for a fact—that Warren Mundine does not speak on behalf of the council. The deputy chair, Dr Ngaire Brown, has already publicly spoken out against the cuts. She says it will hit front-line services hard.

I know for a fact that many other members of the council do not support the cuts in this year's budget. They do not support further cuts, and they are horrified by the prospect of another $600 million in cuts. When Warren Mundine is providing advice that is not the view of the advisory council, he needs to be very careful of using his position as chair of the advisory council when he advocates policy that is not supported by the council. He is advocating policy that is not the endorsed policy of the council he chairs. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs—indeed, the entire cabinet—should take their advice from the whole council, not just the chair. I urge all members to read this report, which I have here. I condemn the government's budget and the effect it will have on Indigenous Australians.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers. It is interesting. During question time we should remind ourselves that it is an opportunity for the wider community, not only for people in this place, to get information about some of the programs. I am very disappointed by what at best could be a pretty disingenuous attempt to table budget papers that are clearly on the public record to confuse people. I do have an opportunity to place on the record some corrections.

You have got one thing right, Senator Peris, and that is that it is in fact on page 185 of the budget papers, and that is probably where it ends. If you look at the budget papers on page 185 and read the explanation underneath, you will see that it says:

The Government will achieve … savings of $534.4 million over five years through efficiencies resulting from the rationalisation of Indigenous programmes, grants … administered by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Health portfolios.

If you bother to examine more than that one page in the budget, you will find a number of very interesting points.

Budget Paper No. 2 includes the savings of TSRA and Health. Over five years, they do indeed add up to $534.4 million. One hundred and twenty-eight million dollars are in the Health portfolio, which leaves in my area $412 million over five years. The $412 million is made up of $3.5 million, which is the $4.5 million from TSRA, and that leaves $409.2 million for my programs. That includes $355.2 million in administrative funding—where you are talking about front-line services, grants and those processes—and it also includes $54 million, which has been taken out of departmental funding, which is administration and backroom saves. That would mean $355.2 million is the total save. We have chosen to reinvest $115.7 million in those portfolio areas. You would be quite familiar with the $54.1 million for permanent police presence, $2.5 million for community engagement officers, $3.8 million for a child abuse task force, $13.4 billion for the Sporting Chance Program, of which I know you are a great supporter, Senator, and $10.6 million for outback power. I hope that clarifies that. The reason I am saying that the actual cuts to front-line services is not $535 million is that it is not.

I will go to some of the other parts of your question. Why is the chairman of the council that advises the Prime Minister going to cut another $600 million? It is pretty disingenuous to couch it in those terms. I have in front of me the article that you refer to, Senator. It says on the very top line:

… Mr Mundine wants to cut $600 million of red tape and inefficiencies … and reinvest the funds in employment, schools and community safety.

That is pretty hard to couch as a cut and it is pretty disingenuous if you then add that cut to the $535 million, which is equally incorrect, come up with $1.1 million and ask me another question. It is disingenuous at best. Whilst I respect the fact that the senator has not been around for a particularly long time, when you are provided with advice from your colleagues on this matter, you should check them out. You have the budget papers. You sought to table them, Senator. You should read the budget papers and those ancillaries—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, I would prefer you to direct your comments through me.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall. I acknowledge that. Senator Peris then tried to make the case that this is all breaking up, saying she does not like Mr Mundine or that he is not representative. He is doing an absolutely terrific job. I met with the whole council in this regard, including Ngaire, and she did not tell me that she did not support the 4.5 per cent efficiency dividend that would be taken out of inefficiencies and red tape but would have no impact on front-line services. I can tell you that they are a robust council who cross-examined me at length on these matters. I would just like to assure the senator, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the assertions she made about the views of others are in fact incorrect and the assertions she made about the budget and what we are doing in the budget were equally incorrect.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take note of the answers given to questions today by, in my case, Senator Scullion. If that was a defence of what happened in the budget, goodness me, I am sure that the people out there will be thinking, 'I have no idea what the minister has just said.' I will read from the budget paper and I will seek leave to table a copy of the paper. It says:

The Government will achieve net savings of $534.4 million over five years through efficiencies resulting from the rationalisation of Indigenous programmes, grants and activities administered by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Health portfolios.

It says that $534 million will be saved. That means $534 million will not be spent on providing services and programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our country. You cannot deny that this is what is said in your own budget papers. Senator Scullion stood up and said, 'That's incorrect.' Those are hollow words; there is nothing there. We know that $534 million was cut from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs in the last budget and now we hear that Mr Mundine, the chair of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, wants it to go further—'We want to cut more programs.'

I asked questions of Senator Scullion today about what is happening in the tobacco cessation programs. We know very clearly from Senate estimates that there are large cuts in this program, but we have not been able to nail it. So it has been very interesting to see that Dr Tom Calma has had to come out himself to explain what is really happening with Indigenous smoking. We know that in this country we are making progress. We have cut the level of smoking for the whole population considerably. We are one of the best in the world. But we are not winning the race to cut the smoking rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. About 42 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people smoke cigarettes, and that is not acceptable. But we know that in some remote communities that figure is up to about 70 per cent.

And now we find out that $130 million has been cut from the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. We know that the way this is happening is by not replacing people who are currently employed on Dr Calma's program when they resign. In Darwin, there is a situation where one of the major teams should have six staff working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to help them not to start smoking or to stop smoking, but that complement of staff is now down to two. Dr Calma said that they are only doing a third of what they have the capacity to do, and he says further that reducing information about smoking will contribute to the early deaths of Indigenous Australians.

Is that not a wake-up call to this minister—this minister who says: 'You can't ask me questions about that; I'm the Minister for Indigenous Affairs; that's not in my portfolio'? Well, if you are the Minister for Indigenous affairs who is responsible to the Prime Minister, who calls himself 'the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs', don't you think that it is pretty important that you be very aware of the impact of cutting $130 million from targeting smoking? Your own budget papers say: 'Tobacco smoking is the most preventable cause of ill-health and early death amongst Indigenous Australians, and smoking is responsible for about one-fifth of deaths amongst Indigenous Australians.' Don't you think that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs should care, and that that is something he needs to be engaged about? He simply said, 'It's not my portfolio; I don't know.' I asked him to confirm whether or not he agreed that tackling smoking would be the best way of decreasing early, preventable deaths in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and he did not take the opportunity to agree with that. He did not bother. This is meant to be the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in this country, providing representation and support for those people who are some of the most vulnerable in our community, and his response is: 'It's not my portfolio; you can't ask me questions about that.' But his defence today of $534 million worth of cuts was, frankly, almost laughable—being able to say, 'A bit here and a bit there and a bit somewhere else.' Five hundred and thirty-four million dollars was cut, and you know it. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I talk about the specific program which we are taking note of answers on today, I would just draw the attention of the chamber to comments made by Senator McLucas where she said that Senator Scullion, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, made the comment, 'It's not my portfolio, so I don't know.' I would just put on the record: 'I don't know' does not mean 'I don't care'.

The other thing is that, as Senator Scullion pointed out, many of the programs to which the other side was referring in their questions came within the health portfolio. Sitting right next to Senator Scullion was the assistant minister representing the Minister for Health. So we had a person in this chamber of whom we could easily ask those very questions.

The other thing that probably warrants some attention is the nomenclature that is used when describing some of these amounts of money. There is a difference between 'saved', 'redirected' and 'cut'. When we get up in a place like this and talk about things being cut from budgets and front-line services being slashed and make all the kinds of very inflammatory statements that we have heard made today in relation to funding in this sector, we need to get our facts right. Much of the money to which Senator Peris referred earlier is actually money that has been redirected. It is not money that has been cut. It is not even money that has been saved. It is merely money that has been redirected. So, first and foremost, we need to be very careful that we do not start misinforming the public whom we are attempting to address, because many of the people who are taking advantage of, or who potentially could take advantage of, programs such as the Tackling Indigenous Smoking initiative, to which the initial and second questions referred, do not need to be scared by the kind of scaremongering words that get said when they say, 'Millions and millions of dollars are about to be cut out of the budget,' when they are not. These people actually trust us to tell them the truth and to be accurate in how we reflect what is going on. I would suggest that much of the stuff that has happened today—the questions that have been asked and the inferences that have been drawn, and the comments that have been made in taking note following that—has done nothing more than scare many of the people out there who would serve to benefit substantially from some of these sorts of programs.

As to the program that we are talking about, much concern has been raised about it and its ability to deliver good results. There are 50-odd teams out there on the ground, in my understanding, and some of them have been having greater levels of success than others. It seems to me only reasonable to actually do an assessment of what is actually happening on the ground, to check the results and to see whether the programs are actually working. That is exactly what we are seeking to do.

We are committed to continuing our efforts in this space, but I think it is entirely reasonable to undertake a review of this program to make sure that the future direction of this program is actually going to achieve the results that we seek to achieve, because, as was stated by those opposite a minute ago, smoking-related deaths and illness in our Indigenous population are very serious issues and we cannot afford to take them lightly. So I think we are being entirely responsible with the budget that we have, in making sure that we are spending the money in the most efficient and effective way we can on these sorts of programs. But there is nothing surer than this: if you want to have a generous and sustainable social program, and you want to have a generous and sustainable health program, you also have to match that up with an equally strong budget program. If we had not had to be standing here today and talking about budget measures to try to get our budget back under control, not only would many of these programs have been able to be sustained but they may actually have been able to be expanded and new programs might have been able to be introduced. But we had a budget that was in a position that just was not sustainable, and we had no choice but to introduce a number of measures that I am sure no-one on this side of the chamber wanted. To come in here and try to make it sound as though we are cutting budgets when in fact that is not the case—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what you're doing—black and white!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If budgets are being cut, we will be man enough to stand here and accept that. But do not stand here and scaremonger over budgets when they are not being cut.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Senator Cormann. The government refuses to table its regulations and allow this place to properly debate the loopholes that it wants to introduce. It tries to bide its time to twist the arm of the new crossbench friends for just a few more days to soothe their concerns and try to convince them that this government is not going to roll back basic consumer protections. It tries to convince its crossbench friends that the Abbott government is not acting in the best interests of the big banks and in the interests of a handful of conmen, fraudsters, crooks and criminals who salivate at any opportunity to go back to the bad old days of financial advice when they could clip the ticket and get a blank cheque.

The acting Assistant Treasurer is in the chamber now. Just show us one consumer group that supports the gutting of the best interest duty, that taking consumer protections back to a lower standard than existed before FoFA was introduced is a good idea. The government is not just introducing nine separate loopholes to the ban on conflicted remuneration; it is also gutting the best interest duty. The FoFA laws, introduced by Labor, provided a checklist, an obligation to ensure financial advisers ask appropriate questions of their clients, to ensure that a reasonable adviser will exercise care, skill and objectivity in assessing the client's circumstances. Not content with this, the government will now allow financial advisers to limit the scope of advice to a specific bank's product, even if they know full well that, by doing so, they are taking the client's best interests for a stroll down the garden path. The new standard is that the advice no longer needs to be in the client's interest; it now only needs to be 'appropriate'. This proposal, first brought to the government in 2006, was rejected by the then Howard government because it was so obviously a loophole, an opportunity for those who want to cheat and con the system to find a way to give the appearance of giving proper, frank, fair financial advice when they know full well it is not in the interests of the consumers.

The minister likes to go on about people being in the pockets of other people. Let's be clear about this. In 2006, AMP received an enforceable undertaking in regard to this practice. This practice was used in the Timbercorp scandal, it was used by CBA financial planners, and now the government wants to legalise this loophole for banks and the financial advice industry. The minister, in different capacities in the past, has been a strong proponent of many of these kinds of reforms. He has spent a lot of time over the years talking to a lot of different groups that have been affected by this. I have the utmost respect for this minister given the amount of time he has spent carefully studying some of these matters in the past. But the reforms that are being proposed are not good for Australia, they are not good for Australian consumers and they are not good for the people who have felt the brunt of these scandals in the past. I urge the minister to reconsider what he is doing. If you are not prepared to do that, at least have the courage to table your own regulation in this place so we can have a debate about whether it should be disallowed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to asylum seekers.

This is obviously extremely distressing news. Young mothers, whose babies who were born on Australian soil, in Australian hospitals, have been deported to Christmas Island and re-detained with their babies. And some of those mothers have other young children as well. It is extremely distressing that these mothers are contemplating taking their own lives because they see it as the only option to give their children freedom. If nothing else, it is a desperate cry for help. Earlier this week, another young woman, who had been suffering from severe depression and anxiety and had been sent to Perth for treatment and help, was sent back to Christmas Island and re-detained in the detention camp, and only days after she attempted to hang herself. This young woman, 24 years old, was Iranian. Then, after being put on suicide watch, the moment she was taken off suicide watch she climbed on top of one of the buildings and jumped off. This happened earlier this week. There is a toxic, a distressing and a completely desperate culture inside the family camp on Christmas Island.

I must say, I am appalled by the Prime Minister's response to these issues today. In his interview on Channel 9he accused these mothers of attempting moral blackmail. The Prime Minister said that he thought that any thinking Australian wouldn't accept this type of moral blackmail. I will tell you what: I think most thinking Australians would be thinking, 'How about a little bit of compassion from our Prime Minister'. We have desperate mothers doing these types of actions and making these extreme calls for help in order to stand up for the protection and freedom of their children.

I know we get caught up on this entire issue of: 'Oh, we have to be as cruel as possible. We have to have the harshest policy possible in order to deter people coming here and to save lives at sea.' I put it to you, Mr President, that saving lives at sea is meaningless when we are taking away all of the reasons for these people to live. That is what we are hearing from these women and mothers today. We have to protect people whether they are on the sea or in our detention centres. We have a duty of care to look after them. We have a duty of care to ensure that they can be good parents to their children. We need to make sure that we offer them the support and protection that they deserve. I hear the snickering of members on the other side right now.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a misrepresentation.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a pretty serious indictment on Australia's conditions inside immigration detention.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young intimated that this side of the chamber was snickering at her comments—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we were just talking.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order. Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The attitude of the Prime Minister this morning to these mothers' desperate cries for help was nothing short of appalling. The Prime Minister wants to talk about being morally blackmailed, well you would have to have some morals in the first place. This government and this Prime Minister are morally bankrupt when it comes to their attitude to these people.

There are some serious things that the government could do today to help these women. The first thing is to ensure that they have proper psychiatric and mental health support. They do not at the moment. I am also extremely concerned that they are being guarded by male guards. There are no female guards on duty and not enough to help in these situations. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.