Patrick Dodson (WA, 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 Communications (Senator Fifield) to questions without notice asked by Senators Dodson and McCarthy today relating to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and to the shortwave radio service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

I have listened carefully to the answers from the ministers, particularly Senator Scullion, and I am disappointed, I must say, because when I look at the audit report at page 15—

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

Senator Dodson, would you resume your seat please? Order in the chamber please. Please leave the chamber quietly.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned, if Senator Scullion were to look at page 15 of the audit report, at point 1.2 he would see that the report refers to the 2014-15 budget report that reported that the Australian government, by the adoption of the IAS, would save $534.4 million over five years by rationalising Indigenous programs, grants and activities. The five per cent he referred to was a five per cent cut over the programs in order to sustain them in the shemozzle that was going on in the implementation. I am disappointed, and in relation to some of the other matters he raised I would also turn him to page 23 of the audit report to see what is said there.

I am disappointed that he is not taking the findings of the ANAO report to heart in a thoughtful and considered way. Senator Scullion said that the findings should be viewed as historical in nature, but Professor Langton said:

One would think there'd be a policy response instead of lame denials.

I agree with Professor Langton on this issue. His answers did not articulate to me a way forward beyond the current policy settings that have led to the problems that the audit office has shone light upon. The minister has focused his grand hopes for a new world order on a proposed multi-year program of evidence and evaluation activities in a contracted program at outcomes level. This new program will take, as I am informed, $10 million a year from the IAS—the Indigenous Advancement Strategy—over five years to evaluate the program. I am informed this is not new money. This is money that has been taken from addressing the issues on the ground and diverted, probably to the consultancy industry, to do the evaluations. It is patching up some of the failings by the minister's department in failing to have appropriate evaluation processes in place in the first instance.

The minister argued in his press release on 3 February:

Evaluation at the contract, program and outcome level will ensure we not only know where the money is being spent, but we will know what works and why.

The Audit Office clearly shows that you, Minister, have not had any real sense of the answer to these questions. You are now putting funds into finding answers to some of the questions you should already have known the answers to—that is, where the money is being spent, what works and why.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and their organisations have many answers as to what works, and they have a collective resource of knowledge as to why it works. That comes through again and again in the views expressed by the informed academics, by community organisations and by the people whose lives are grounded in the reality in which they live.

The answer is to engage the community and their organisations on the grounds of a genuine partnership. This is the rhetoric of the IAS, the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, coming out of the department, and I have heard it. In your answer, it is not the reality. It is not the lived reality of our people, who have suffered through the IAS fiasco. It is not the case today, and it was not the case in the period of the audit review. I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that it is important for the government and the taxpayers but more important for the communities in whose name the money is being spent. (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. No government, and no side of politics, can claim to have found policy nirvana in the area of Indigenous affairs as long as Indigenous Australians continue to experience a life which is nowhere near in line with that of their fellow Australians. There is work that we all need to do to get closer to better policy outcomes for Indigenous Australians, but this government is making a real effort to get closer to that situation, and I commend the minister's efforts, including through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, to make those gains and those improvements.

The Indigenous Advancement Strategy has greatly improved the transparency and accountability of Indigenous affairs funding. As a result of the coalition government's IAS reforms, we now know, for the first time, how much money is being spent across the Indigenous Affairs portfolio and what outcomes we can expect for the investment of taxpayers' money. That sounds like an extraordinary thing to say in 2017—that it is only now that we know how much money is being spent on Indigenous advancement—but that is an important reform achieved by this government.

The IAS introduced reforms that were long overdue and essential to ensure that our investment in Indigenous affairs was getting to where it would be the most effective. Importantly, frontline service delivery was maintained and outcomes were improved through the introduction of the IAS. Through the 2014 grant funding round, the percentage of Indigenous organisations funded increased from 30 per cent to 45 per cent.

But, as I said, we can always do better. That is why—and I think this is very crucial—the government plans to allocate $10 million a year over the next four years to strengthen the evaluation of the IAS programs. That is one of the key pieces of feedback we have had in recent years, and I note particularly the excellent work done by Sara Hudson at the Centre for Independent Studies and the importance that she and other scholars in this area place on the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs, because we need to ensure that money being spent in this area is actually improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. This evaluation will ensure that we know what works and, importantly, why.

The IAS has three key priorities. The first is getting children to school, the second is getting adults to work, and the third is making communities safer. These are three objectives that I am sure all senators share. The IAS is focused on these priorities because that is what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have said they want the government to deliver. We have listened, we are learning, and that is the feedback we have received. These are fundamental to improving the outcomes for First Australians.

Already the Indigenous Advancement Strategy is making a difference. Around 60 First Australians are being placed into jobs every single day. The Remote School Attendance Strategy is helping approximately 14,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children get to school. Through our Indigenous Procurement Policy, millions of dollars in Commonwealth contracts are going to Indigenous businesses every year. This is a really important strategy to help encourage Indigenous entrepreneurship and allow them to start businesses that will help lift them out of poverty.

The government's IAS brought together 150 programs and activities into five broad streams. It consolidated some of the 1,800 staff from across eight different departments and agencies into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and created a regional network which is now working in partnership with Indigenous communities across urban, regional and remote Australia. These reforms have enabled a far more strategic and flexible approach to the government's investment in Indigenous affairs to achieve better outcomes on the ground while also relieving the administrative burden and red tape from organisations servicing Indigenous communities. The IAS has delivered on this government's commitment to doing things with Indigenous Australians, including by increasing the percentage of Indigenous organisations funded, as I said earlier, from 30 per cent to 45 per cent under the grant funding round.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution to this discussion, no government can claim to have found the perfect solution to any of the problems that the Indigenous community faces, but this government is making a very good effort to get closer to that situation, and we are seeing very real gains from this government's Indigenous affairs policies. I hope to see that continue over the coming years.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The responses to my questions to Senator Fifield as Minister for Communications in relation to the ABC's removal of its short-wave radio services across northern Australia and indeed the Pacific confirm what a total disaster and disgrace this decision has been. The minister admits that consultation has been totally inadequate. The next question is: what are you going to do about it?

The removal of short-wave services to the people of the remote regions of northern Australia is a life-and-death issue. It matters. It matters to the people on the ground, from our communities, our cattle stations and along the coastlines to our fishing communities and the truckies who travel the roads in those most remote regions. If ever there was a case that showed the huge city-country divide, this decision certainly wins the gold medal.

In terms of short-wave radio, in the responses by the minister, he said the ABC made this decision and that it is in no way related to funding—that the ABC has base funding confirmed for the next three years. However, in the discussions I, along with our shadow communications minister, Mark Dreyfus, had with the managing director of the ABC, Michelle Guthrie, she said that it was related to funding and that, as a result of contractual relationships and discussions with Broadcast Australia, this was a decision the ABC had to make.

I say to the Senate that the decision to remove a very vital service to the people of northern Australia and giving only seven weeks notice—in the first week of December, going into Christmas and New Year, when people could not give their full attention to responding urgently to this issue in an adequate way—that on 31 January this service would be turned off is totally appalling. Having the Minister for Communications confirm that the consultation which the ABC says it took was not adequate means that there must be movement now to look into this and to reinstate the service to the people of northern Australia and all those in the Pacific who rely on this very critical service.

I acknowledge also the work of my colleagues Warren Snowdon MP, Luke Gosling MP, Mark Dreyfus MP, Stephen Jones MP and even the Leader of the Opposition in writing to the Prime Minister, urging him to act, saying that we need this service. We are not there yet.

Now, Minister Fifield said in his response that the ABC has relented slightly by donating certain equipment. Well, hello, that equipment will not work. We do not have the technology in the Northern Territory, compared to our brothers and sisters in the cities of Australia. We want to have that technology, but we are not there yet. We rely solely on the short-wave radio service beyond so many kilometres of the main cities of Darwin and Alice Springs. This is a completely disastrous decision. The VAST services which the ABC says is what the digital move is towards will not work for us—not yet. We want to be there, but we are not there yet.

The best thing that this government can do is provide the moneys necessary to get short-wave radio back up and running in northern Australia and in the Pacific so that these people in remote and regional parts of Australia do not lose the communication that they so very much deserve.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful also for the opportunity to speak on the matters that have been brought to the attention of the Senate through the questions from senators McCarthy and Dodson. I appreciate the perspective they bring, coming from the communities they do, having spent a bit of time with those communities myself, particularly in the Northern Territory last year, and seeing firsthand some of the issues they face in that region.

I start with the answers from the Minister for Communications that Senator McCarthy was referring to. It is an interesting juxtaposition, I suppose you could say, with regard to what this question was getting at. On the one hand, the opposition demand the independence of the ABC, which the minister referred to in his answer—that the ABC has legislated independence—but, on the other hand, they demand that there be an intervention. I accept that there are concerns and issues around what is taking place with the cessation of the short-wave service. But you cannot have it both ways. The ABC Board, as the minister said, had gone through the process they needed to go through and had made a decision. In view of the reference to the ageing technology of the short-wave service and the cost of maintaining it, is it the best deal that the Northern Territory community can get? That is a question that I think remains unanswered.

In addressing this, I just wonder whether it is the ALP's plan to take back control of operational decisions made by the ABC Board. Is Senator McCarthy, in asking that question, insisting that Senator Fifield intervene; and, if so, is that what the Labor Party would do if they were returned to the treasury bench? On the point about budgetary constraints made by Senator McCarthy, Senator McCarthy said she spoke to the managing director of the ABC and claims that Ms Guthrie made claims that it was related to budget cuts, and I will be very interested in exploring that exact issue with her at Senate estimates in a couple of weeks time. But the minister said that this matter was not related to that. It is always interesting to hear what people have to say about these things, and, as I said, I will be interested to hear what Ms Guthrie has to say about it when we get the chance to speak to her about it.

The Minister for Communications did outline the transitional arrangements that the ABC is assisting with, including the provision of VAST satellite services to a number of organisations, including all Royal Flying Doctor Service bases, which I think is a vital and important part of making sure that communications still operate. The RFDS provide an incredibly important service right throughout that community affected. Also for all of the four-wheel drive radio clubs in the affected region, which will allow the rebroadcast of emergency or warning messages, which I think is important.

The minister did stress that this was not a decision taken lightly by the ABC. Indeed, he also expressed his views about the community reaction around the consultation process, so I think that must be taken into account. But, going back to the original point, we also need to take into account the independence of the ABC board and how they make their decisions. So I believe it is not entirely fair to come in here and say: 'Fix it! Go and fix it!' when there are legislated mechanisms around how the ABC make these decisions.

Turning briefly to the answers that Senator Dodson made a contribution on a little bit earlier, I think I can only reinforce the points made by Senator Paterson. The key one is around the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the point that when we have knowledge about services being provided and the funds being provided it allows us to understand properly where we need to go from the current point in time. I think the point was made by Senator Paterson and indeed by the minister that there is always room for improvement, which I think is a very mature acknowledgement for any government minister or any senator to make. I think it is the right one. I do not think there is anyone sitting here saying, 'Yep, it's absolutely perfect.' I think Senator Paterson referred to it as policy nirvana with regard to this particular portfolio. It is important to note that this is about giving us that knowledge so that we know from here where to go. There is work to be done. I just think that we need to get some reason into our debates in this place and not demand what we cannot have. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers provided to Senators McCarthy and Dodson by Senators Fifield and Scullion on the cessation of ABC's short-wave radio and the poor management of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy grants. What these senators on my left were asking were simple questions—which I think could have been given very clear answers, but were not—on critical services that apply to rural and regional Australia and also to Indigenous Australians. They were very simple questions and they both were at the heart of clear problems with the Abbott-Turnbull government's cuts to vital services and lack of consultation. We see that very clearly.

The cessation of the short-wave radio service is yet another example of Prime Minister Turnbull's confusion over innovation and reality. The ABC and the government have displayed a complete lack of understanding of the services in communications that are available to people in remote outback Australia. People have been told that they should subscribe to the new viewer access satellite TV, satellite phones and internet services. But this advice completely misses the point that these services are scratchy at best and are not available to people on the move. As Minister Scullion surely knows and as I would hope Minister Fifield knows, it can take many hours to travel from one end of one property to another, and if the weather is inclement satellite services may not even work across that journey. It is as though the ministers expect the people of remote Northern Territory to travel the countryside in a massive bus akin to the one in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, with a huge, outrageous satellite on the top. It is not the reality of what we would expect.

Because of the campaigning of Senator McCarthy and our colleagues in the lower house, Mr Gosling and Mr Snowdon, the government was forced to at least make a comment on this issue. But late in the peace, just a few weeks before the short-wave service was to be cut, Minister Scullion made a late attempt to save face with his constituents in the outback. But his worth in cabinet must be questioned because all his colleague Minister Fifield can do is blame the ABC for a decision that this government made to cut that back. Both ministers have a very shorty memory about their budget cuts to the ABC, but they are trying to hide the fact that under their watch $254 million have been cut from the ABC's budget. Now all they can say about these services is, 'It's the ABC's decision.' Of course the ABC has to make decisions around budget cuts when the cuts are coming from this government.

It is also important to note that this cut to short-wave services—as I think Senator McCarthy made reference to—does not just affect Australians. Millions of people in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and right across the breadth of the South Pacific rely also on short-wave radio for information on natural disasters—this is an area which we know has a number of these—and news about the world. At a time when China, New Zealand, the UK and Germany are expanding their short-wave services into the Pacific, the Turnbull government sleeps at the wheel and completely lacks any understanding of the availability of digital satellite technology in remote communities across the Pacific and across the top of Australia. Do the minister and the Prime Minister seriously believe that people in remote villages on Pacific islands have access to digital radios? Come on. It is a critical time for Australia and the Pacific, with the referendum in Bougainville coming up, with the withdrawal of RAMSI in the Solomon Islands and with the push by China and other people to increase their influence. And yet this government cuts off our direct line to the people. For what? A total saving for the ABC of $1.8 million. It is outrageous.

The ABC and the government have claimed that another reason for ending the short-wave service is a lack of understanding about the number of listeners. And yet there is evidence from Papua New Guinea that over 20 per cent of that population listen to Radio Australia either on the day of that survey or the day before. Minister Fifield spent a lot of time blaming the ABC board for this decision. I think it is time that the ministers in this government stood up and represented the people in those communities and listened to the people in those communities about their needs. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.