Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Today the opposition asked the government a number of questions about its achievements, or lack of, in relation to Closing the Gap, given the significant statements made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, ministers and colleagues across the chamber today. Today's work reinforces this government's place as a government of broken promises. This government came to power in 2022 promising everything to Indigenous Australians and has come close to the end of the parliamentary term delivering almost nothing, with policy confusion, policy paralysis and a genuine concern amongst Indigenous Australians in relation to where this government wants to take them.

It's been interesting to hear, during the debate and particularly in question time, the calls across the chamber for bipartisanship. There have been a number of occasions on which the opposition has gone to the government seeking bipartisan support for elements of policy delivery in this area where it is quite clear things are going wrong. I don't know how many times I've heard the saying, 'If you continue to do exactly the same thing as you've done in the past, you're crazy if you expect a different result,' yet that's exactly what we've seen from the government. Early in the parliament, I myself went to the government when there were clearly things wrong in the way that a number of Indigenous organisations were operating. That was after the ORIC report provided to us had showed that 28 per cent of organisations hadn't lodged their required financial documents for two years. As an opposition, we went to the government seeking the opportunity to have a look at the way those organisations were operating, and we were effectively told to go away. Clearly, there's an issue there.

It's all very well for the government to seek bipartisanship when it's something they want, but bipartisanship, by its very nature, works both ways, and that's not what we've seen from the government in relation to this. We've seen the expiry of alcohol bans in the Northern Territory and then the scrambling to recover ground afterwards. We've seen the allocation of significant amounts of money and the government continuing to talk up how much money it's spending in this area. That's fine; the allocation of resources is important. But what is also important is how they're allocated, how they're delivered on the ground and how they deliver results. Tragically, in that space is where this government has failed.

It has failed philosophically also. The whole concept of Closing the Gap is about ensuring that Indigenous Australians raise their circumstances to those of all other Australians—that they shouldn't need to accept standards that are lower than those of all other Australians. Yet one of the first things that this government did in coming to power and passing its aged-care legislation was to remove the requirement for Indigenous aged-care delivery services to comply with the same governance standards as every other aged-care provider in the country. How do we ensure that Indigenous Australians are lifted to the same standard as everyone else if we don't require the same standard of them as part of what they need to do? This government has completely failed Indigenous Australians, from a number of different perspectives.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start with Senator Colbeck and the comments just passed. Because our stories are closely intertwined across this country, no matter what our heritage is we are the lucky country, because we have a 65,000-year history that we've inherited by coming into this country. We need to be looking at policies that build a cohesive and coherent community. When those opposite come in here and start saying there are things that aren't working or that nothing has been done, I find it absolutely appalling. You see list after list of the important initiatives in 2024, and I'll go through just some of them in a moment. It really galls me when those opposite say nothing has been done—I will correct that record in a moment—and nothing is planned. I will correct that record as well, because there's more to be done; we all know that.

When they come in here and say there's $350 billion to come out of the budget, we know that the first people who'll get it in the neck will be First Nations communities. It will affect Medicare, health systems, service workers—the people who provide the services that support those communities.

We start talking about policy areas into the future and we start looking at the Future Made in Australia, which has community aspects along with incentives for business to turn around and invest downstream on critical minerals. But what do they do? They ridicule and oppose every initiative that helps First Nations peoples. Whether it's by announcing $350 billion to come out of the budget without the guts to tell us where it is actually coming from—but we know their history; we don't have to guess it. They deny the initiatives that have been done by this parliament.

Quite rightly, comments have been made about the fact that this has normally, traditionally and hopefully been a bipartisan approach to improving what is one of the most disadvantaged—the most disadvantaged in many parts of the country—communities: people that have been on this country for 65,000 years. And yet they don't come with one suggestion, one proposal. They're even opposed to fee-free TAFE when there are tens of thousands of First Nations people who have taken advantage of fee-free TAFE because they couldn't afford to do it before. They didn't have the opportunity. The wraparound services that TAFE provides unleash economic opportunity not only for those individuals but also for the community itself. It means employers have an opportunity to employ more people. It means the skill levels within our community are improved. Along with First Nations peoples, others in the rest of the community have had that opportunity. But those opposite, time and time again, oppose every initiative that helps the community advance in this country, whether it be fee-free TAFE or Future Made in Australia. We say we interconnect. We make it a possibility for everybody in the country to benefit from those investments.

I will go through some of the ones that those opposite fail to name. These are only a few; there are so many. We commenced the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, which will create up to 3,000 jobs in remote communities over three years. We have expanded the Indigenous Rangers Program to create 1,000 new jobs, including 770 positions for First Nations women. We've opened the first of up to 30 dialysis units in regional and remote locations so First Nations people can receive treatment closer to home and on country. We've welcomed over 300 enrolments in the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program. We've invested in 27 community justice investment program initiatives in First Nations communities across Australia. We have expanded the Connected Beginnings program to 50 communities, supporting more First Nations children to thrive in the crucial early years. And of course we've announced the Future Made in Australia and fee-free TAFE, which those opposite are opposed to, a community compact that provides benefit for the economy, for business and for those in community, including First Nations people. We have also said we will reduce the cost of 30 essential products in more than 76 remote stores to help ease cost-of-living pressures and improve food security in remote communities.

With all that, we still have those opposite saying they're going to take money out of community, out of services that provide and rebuild the community. There is one very clear thing: every Australian will be worse off under a Dutton government.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address this very important issue that is closing the gap, the questions that were asked and the answers that were given by various ministers in relation to this point. I take what Senator Sheldon is saying. There are some important initiatives that this government is implementing. But he talks about fee-free TAFE. One thing that Senator Sheldon failed to recognise in his contribution is that what fee-free TAFE is doing is preferencing funding towards, essentially, public service delivery and training, and we've got many Indigenous registered training organisations that are not going to be in receipt of the support of fee-free TAFE, because it has to go to TAFE and not private institutions.

We know the wraparound support that's provided by Indigenous-controlled and run RTOs is actually very profound, particularly when it comes to training and supporting Indigenous people in this country. That's a point that Senator Sheldon failed to mention.

On the issue of one of the questions that came up in relation to income management, there is a long list of disappointments when it comes to the Albanese government. Its handling of the cost of living crisis is certainly towards the top. In Western Australia, my home state, the passing of the legislation to ban the live sheep trade is a big disappointment. There is a long list of disappointments, but one of the great shames of this government was the very first piece of legislation that it brought into this place, which was to abolish the cashless debit card. This initiative was working in communities across Australia. There were four trial sites: the eastern Goldfields and the northern Goldfields, in the Kimberley; Ceduna, in South Australia; and Bundaberg, in Queensland.

The impact of the cashless debit card on each of these communities was quite profound. It was no silver bullet—no-one ever claimed it was—but it was having a significant impact. Because of the government's ideology against this initiative, without listening to those in the community and without engaging with those in the community—we learnt through the inquiry process that the Minister for Social Services and the assistant minister, when they made the decision to abolish the cashless debit card, didn't even visit and never actually spoke to people on the ground. Whom did they listen to? They listened to the academics in the universities of Sydney and Melbourne, rather than listening to the people on the ground in these communities. It is a great shame that that legislation was passed by this parliament and abolished the cashless debit card without them listening to those that are on the ground in these communities.

What's happened now? We've seen those communities recede back to the previous levels of violence and social unrest, and kids are going to school hungry. The Wyndham primary school now has to bring in extra food on a Monday for their breakfast program because kids are going hungry over the weekend, yet, when the cashless debit card was in operation there, they required less food to feed the kids on a Monday because kids were getting a belly full of food. But, because of an ideologically, inner-city driven mindset of this government, we saw the abolition of the cashless debit card. It is a great shame and it is something they should hang their heads in shame over. It's actually impacting upon people's lives. There are women that are frightened for their own lives and their own safety because of the violence that is occurring in places like Laverton and Leonora, in Western Australia; Kununurra, in the Kimberley; and Wyndham. This is happening because of this decision by this government. Last time I checked—and I'm happy to be corrected—the minister, Minister Rishworth, has not been back to these communities since to see the impact of her decision, to see the impact of the decision of this government upon these communities. It is absolutely shameful.

Thankfully a future Dutton led government will restore the cashless debit card not only in these communities but in other communities that might want to see it implemented in their place as a remedy, a solution, to address the harm that is caused by alcohol and drug fuelled violence. We would support that, and that's why you must elect a Dutton coalition government. We're the only ones that are going to act on the needs of the community.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a real mixed bag of questions today from the opposition. There weren't really any gotcha moments, though, I've got to say. Before I begin my response, I want to acknowledge the amazing work done by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, my colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy; by her predecessor, Linda Burney; and also by Senator Stewart. I've found the work that Minister McCarthy has done in trying to close the gap has reinforced the fact that, if she wasn't before, she's a real leader in Indigenous matters.

On Thursday, we'll celebrate 17 years since Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, and it's 60 years since the start of the Freedom Ride, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier today. These anniversaries help us to remember the injustices and the mistakes of the past and to focus on what is not working. Unfortunately, as we heard today from the PM, there are areas in which we can improve, and I don't think there's any government that thinks it's perfect. We are seeing improvements on 11 out of 19 targets in the national agreement, but, sadly, only five are on track to be met. We said, when we came to government, that we would make the CDP voluntary to those that wanted it to be voluntary in those areas. Over the past two years, we've been transitioning to that effect. This is being done in partnership with the First Nations working group in terms of areas like remote jobs.

As I said, the Albanese government made an election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card and to make it voluntary in those communities through the SmartCard. We're delivering on a long-term plan to reform income management. Income management has been in place since 2007, and we're committed to working through this matter in partnership with the communities that would be affected by any changes. First Nations people and other stakeholders were the ones that called for a measured approach to reforming income management, and decisions must be made in partnership with them.

We've heard that any reform needs to reflect the complex needs of the participants and to mitigate any disruption to their ability to manage their own money. We've conducted the widest engagement on income management ever undertaken, and we make no apologies on this side for taking a measured approach to this reform. We want to see appropriate supports, tailored to community needs, for any decisions made on the future of IM to be put in place.

There were a couple of questions, as we know, on income management, but the other question that perplexed me somewhat was the question from Senator Hume in regard to Public Service cuts. We know that Mr Dutton has $350 billion worth of secret cuts, and we know that he vowed to cut overall government spending if elected to government. So, on this side, we're actually calling on the opposition leader to reveal details of his planned cuts. Where are the cuts going to come from? Are going to come from Health? Are they going to come from Education? Are they going to come from DVA? Are they going to come from Defence? Are they going to come from the AFP? TAFE, judging by what the previous speaker said, could well be in the firing line, and, as we on this side know, Mr Dutton certainly doesn't like our fee-free TAFE process.

We do know he wants to cut the Public Service. He probably wants to go back to using all those contractors for his mates, getting all those people back into little contract jobs—not something that we would support on this side. Mr Dutton said he would not detail where the spending cuts would come from until after the federal election, so he's saying, 'Trust me.' What a line—'Trust me; I'm a politician'! Come on! Come out and tell us where these cuts are going to come from. It's not good enough. The people of Australia should know what services are being cut and what services they will not be able to access.

The coalition's plan to wind back the Public Service will result in slower processing of government payments, such as pensions, and, as promised, we've reduced the number of consultants and contractors that were engaged by the former government. But what Mr Dutton hasn't seemed to cotton on to—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Senator Kovacic. The clock will be set for three minutes.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't think that there are many people who think they are better off today than they were three years ago, so it stuns me to hear Senator Sheldon say that everybody will be worse off under a Dutton government. I don't think that's actually possible. I think that the government have done an excellent job of creating a cost-of-living crisis that most Australians cannot navigate. They are finding it really hard to navigate.

Senator Cadell asked some really important questions around the mining sector, particularly that of my home state of New South Wales. The Prime Minister, on his website, has a statement that says, 'A Labor government and a better future.' I challenge him on that because Australians have not had a better future under this government since they elected it—three years ago.

That's specifically a problem in our regional areas, particularly in mining communities. The Prime Minister is going to be at a dinner tonight, according to the Australian, where he is going to talk to the Australian Industry Group. He's going to say to them that he has always valued their constructive engagement, saying:

… even if we sometimes bring different perspectives to the public debate, we all share the same objective, founded on the same understanding …

I contest that that's not true. I think the reason that they've changed their mind in relation to the nature positive laws is because of something called some marginal seats, including Hunter, Paterson and Shortland. The Labor government is set to lose those seats if they don't change and pivot what they're doing. The reality is that it has nothing to do with consultation. It has nothing to do with what they think is right. It's because they want to ensure that they keep those seats—those seats that have some 20,000 mining workers and almost 2½ thousand mining suppliers. Instead of giving them lip service and telling them what they want to hear before an election, despite egregiously not giving proper disclosure or transparency around what happened at McPhillamys, they now pretend that they matter.

The people in those communities need certainty, and they can't get certainty from this government because there is no clarity on what they will and won't do because they themselves often don't know what they're going to do until after they've done it, which is a real problem for our country.

Question agreed to.