Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Saturday night, when the Prime Minister spoke on the result of the referendum, he said: 'This is not a 'yes' or 'no' vote. We are all Australians.' If we're all Australians, Minister, why does your government have race based policies when it should be based on individual needs, not Indigenous and non-Indigenous policies?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are all Australian, and the Prime Minister, in his speech and how he sought to engage post the referendum, emphasised the importance of coming together at this time, when obviously there were different views in our community. There is a lot of hurt in the Australian community and within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, and we need to be respectful about that. I think your question essentially goes to why there are Aboriginal-specific programs. When we're in government and when they're in government, we don't always agree with each other about how they are to be approached, and they are to reflect the commitment to closing the gap, which is based on factually based assessments of disadvantage.

One of the things, one of the stats, which always chills me every time it is raised or referenced is that you're almost twice as likely to die before you're one year old if you're born an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child. No-one thinks that's acceptable, so we want programs and we want policies which change that. Everybody would want that. We all want the best for our children. Everyone would want that. In how we do that, there may be differences of views, and you've heard some today with Senator Liddle's question. What the Prime Minister has said is that we will listen to community, we will work with community and we will engage with community because we understand that, if we work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the outcomes for those communities will be better than if we simply decide what we are doing to them. (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's premise for the Voice to Parliament was to have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people advise on Indigenous policy and to address their issues. Yesterday, you had an Indigenous member of the Senate tell you of the traumatic sexual abuse occurring in Indigenous communities. Why did your government vote down a motion for a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that's a very similar question—and subject matter—to what Senator Liddle asked. I make the point, which I did in relation to that question, that we don't need another royal commission to tell us that concrete action is needed if all of us support and want to focus on the immediate issue of keeping women and children safe. I again go back to the point you made about why we don't do what Senator Nampijinpa Price demands. It's because the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is broader than a single member of this parliament. That is what Senator McCarthy would say, and that is Senator Stewart would say—that what we want to do—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very unfair characterisation, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I think it is a recognition that we want to engage broadly with the community on the way forward. (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Voice to Parliament referendum has exposed the Aboriginal-industry gravy train to the Australian people, who are now demanding answers about its failures to close the gaps despite receiving approximately $40 billion a year in funding. Minister, if your government is committed to closing the gaps and considering the Prime Minister has promised more accountability, why did Labor vote down a motion for an audit of this industry when evidence has been presented for years that indicates that corruption and misappropriation of funds is occurring? (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator. I don't agree with the question, the assertions in the question or some of the phrases used. I don't have the brief that tells me about this, but my recollection is that there was an Audit Office report that the government is responding to. From what Senator Gallagher said yesterday, I think the relevant government agency has accepted seven recommendations—or it might be more—which, you are right, uncovered some problems in the management of those programs. I would make the point that that was under the previous government.

This government is focused on working through what was demonstrated during that audit and ensuring the recommendations of that audit are implemented. I think all of us want to make sure that the funding gets where it is needed and starts to shift the dial, because none of us want to live in a country with this much difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. (Time expired)