Ms HOARE (9:04 PM) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 . As members here would be aware, I hold a great passion for issues and government policy which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I will oppose with vigour any decisions made by this government which could be detrimental to indigenous people. The bill before the parliament amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 to enable the Minister for Finance and Administration to request the Commonwealth Grants Commission to inquire into and report on works and services provided to indigenous people funded directly or indirectly by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authority, grants made under section 96 of the Constitution to a state for works or services provided to indigenous people and grants made by the Commonwealth to a territory to pay for works and services for indigenous people.

In his second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration stated that this bill is aimed at improving the situation of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities by ensuring that funding for programs is distributed on a needs basis. I have no doubt that the speakers who have gone before me and the speakers who will come after me all agree with that great philosophy. If the government's intent is genuinely based on the establishment of a decent and acceptable standard of living for indigenous people, I would applaud it and support it.

As part of my current involvement with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, I have had the opportunity to travel with my colleagues—the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, the other members of the committee and the honourable member for Indi, who is the chair of that committee—to remote communities in the Northern Territory to speak with the people who live there.

During those visits, however, I found it appalling and obscene that suggestions were made by some conservative quarters—and this was also alluded to by the member for Grey during his contribution to this debate—that Aboriginal people should spend their royalty income on areas such as health, housing and education. Health, housing and education services provided to Aboriginal communities must be provided by the state or territory government just as health, housing and education services are provided by those governments to non-indigenous communities.

If the Commonwealth Grants Commission finds in the future that, for example, the Northern Territory Country Liberal government has failed in its provision of these services to Aboriginal communities, then I would support the government's actions to rectify any anomalies. However, if this bill is an integral part of the government's current agenda in indigenous affairs, then I believe that we in the Labor Party and the Australian indigenous communities have every right to be sceptical.

The role which this bill is outlining for the Commonwealth Grants Commission centres on one of the roles which has been traditionally the responsibility of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. One of ATSIC's core obligations has been to provide policy advice to the government and to monitor program delivery to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. ATSIC is currently not in a position to pick up areas of neglect left by mainstream providers at either the state or the Commonwealth level. Within its current resources, ATSIC is facing difficulties trying to meet core obligations.

The Howard government's record on the treatment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and issues relating to indigenous affairs has been nothing short of abysmal. Let me just outline some features of that record. On 10 April 1996 at a Parliament House press conference, the Prime Minister announced that the government would introduce legislation to amend the ATSIC Act to provide for the appointment of the ATSIC chair and reduce the number of regional councils. He also announced the appointment of a Special Auditor to determine whether prospective grantees were fit and proper persons to receive public money and proposed to amend the ATSIC Act to enable an administrator to be appointed if the minister was satisfied there had been fraud, gross mismanagement or failure to respond to a general directive of the minister. I think the member for the Northern Territory spoke quite eloquently on similarities to that situation.

In the federal government's August 1996 budget, federal expenditure in the area of indigenous affairs was cut by $470 million over four years. ATSIC expenditure fell from $968.5 million in 1995-96 to $894 million in 1996-97. This was not a result of a transfer of any significant function to another portfolio area. Indeed, overall indigenous specific expenditure fell dramatically in the 1996-97 financial year. Expenditure in some other areas fell dramatically and some programs—for example, the Community and Youth Support Program—were terminated altogether.

In September 1996 Minister Herron announced that the special audit of ATSIC had been suspended after being ruled invalid in the Federal Court. However, he rejected calls for the government to pay the $830,000 bill, saying that ATSIC had gained considerable benefits from the audit. The Special Auditor was still required to report and did so in October 1996. There were 1,122 ATSIC funded organisations reviewed and 95 per cent were cleared for funding.

In April 1998 a bill to reorganise the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was introduced into the parliament. Under the bill, HREOC will be renamed the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission and will consist of a president and three deputies. One of the deputies will deal with both race discrimination and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice, whereas previously there were two commissioners for those two areas. In May 1998 ATSIC chairman Gatjil Djerrkura responded to the government's budget by saying:

Of the four priorities constantly emphasised by this Government—health, housing, education, and employment, only health has received a significant increase in funding . . .

No more funds have been provided for housing, despite an estimated $4 billion deficit in housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities across Australia and despite the impact of poor living conditions on the health of our communities.

In the face of a looming crisis in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander unemployment, growth of ATSIC's Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme will be tightly restrained.

And overall expenditure on Indigenous-specific programs by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs appears to have been cut next financial year.

As a matter of fact, DEETYA expenditure on indigenous specific programs fell from $416.3 million in 1997-98 to an estimated $384 million.

In July 1998 ATSIC chairman Gatjil Djerrkura tried to seek an early meeting with the Prime Minister about the implementation of the Native Title Amendment Act. He said:

I am concerned that the Prime Minister did not appreciate the value of gaining our input before proceeding to sign off on his agreement with Senator Brian Harradine, despite the fact that this element of the legislation contained limited gains for us.

. . . . . . . . .

Mr Howard heads a Government which is in retreat on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.

In July 1998 Minister Herron issued a press release expressing his deep concern over media reports that a two-day conference in Broome organised by the Kimberley Land Council was costing over $150,000 of taxpayers' money. Minister Herron sought a special audit from ATSIC's Office of Evaluation and Audit into ATSIC conferences. In an address given to the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Gatjil Djerrkura said:

Recently the tabloid press mis-reported the cost of a conference organised by the Kimberley Land Council in West Australia.

The Government did not wait to check the facts, which showed the cost was within industry guidelines.

It seized the opportunity to publicly justify a Special Audit of all conferences, seminars and meetings resourced by ATSIC over the last two years.

No such accountability requirements are imposed on the activities of mainstream agencies.

The Special Audit is a dangerous and costly act of discrimination against our people.

. . . . . . . . .

No matter the findings, it will perpetuate the myth that every black dollar somehow ends up in the red.

The ATSIC budget fell from $973 million in 1997-98 to an estimated $960 million in 1998-99. Overall indigenous specific expenditure increased slightly but, after adjusting for the CPI, it actually represented a slight fall.

In August 1998 Senator Herron alleged that ATSIC-funded organisations attempted to keep their books closed to examination by the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. Also in that month in a joint statement the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory announced an in-principle decision that the Northern Territory become a state on 1 January 2001. The announcement was opposed by many indigenous groups, and Aborigines were concerned that they were being left `sitting in a gum tree' while decisions were being made on their behalf. In September 1998, again without consulting ATSIC, the coalition government announced a proposal to mainstream responsibility for indigenous heritage protection. The policy would transfer responsibility for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to Environment Australia.

In September 1998 Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer described the Northern and Central Land Councils as `blood sucking bureaucracies'. In January 1999 cabinet agreed to abolish Abstudy and move indigenous students on to the means tested youth allowance. The minister was reported as saying that `ATSIC seems to have lost its way' and he would advocate that cabinet approve removing control of housing from ATSIC. In March of this year the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, dismissed the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report which found that the Australian government is committing racial discrimination and is in breach of Articles 2 and 5 of the International Treaty on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

In summary, the main concerns expressed by ATSIC and other indigenous organisations are the devolution of Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs to state and territories, in particular the native title legislation and the heritage legislation; the government's rejection of ATSIC as the government's principal adviser on indigenous issues, for example through the expansion of the Office of Indigenous Policy in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and through a lack of consultation on major issues; a fear that ATSIC will be gutted, for example quarantining parts of the ATSIC budget, lack of consultation, removal of heritage administration and threats of removing housing and CDEP to mainstream departments; and a diminution of social justice and cultural issues and an overemphasis on accountability and economic issues.

The government has not responded to the previous government-initiated social justice report and instead has stressed `practical, commonsense' policies. There have also been examples of what might be termed `symbolic silence'. These include the failure to speak out against or counter statements by Pauline Hanson and One Nation, the refusal to apologise to the stolen generation, the refusal to accept the concept of self-determination and the refusal to use the term, the refusal to accept that reconciliation might take the form of a treaty because this would imply separate nations, and the refusal to recognise anything further than prior occupation in the preamble to the Constitution.

As I stated in the beginning of this speech, I sincerely hope the government is genuine about ensuring the advancement of Aboriginal people. I am sure I will be joined in this hope by the honourable member for Indi when he follows me in this debate. He has shown his sincerity and his social conscience on these issues as chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs committee. I would hope that in any contribution to this debate Minister Herron will stop saying no to Aboriginal people, will stop saying no to a treaty, will stop saying no to Abstudy, no to housing, no to an apology, no to a memorial, no to indigenous administration of cultural heritage. I would hope that Minister Herron would say yes to any future steps proposed to advance toward true reconciliation.