Mr HARDGRAVE (Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) (11:46 AM) —The member for Kennedy has made fine contribution, a very emotional essay, and I think that many in this place would greatly admire his passion for the cause. Between 1983 and 1987 he was the Aboriginal affairs minister in Queensland, and he still represents one of the most Aboriginal electorates.

Mr Katter —1989.

Mr HARDGRAVE —He says 1989. I will take that interjection. I will have to get the Parliamentary Handbook corrected. He certainly still represents one of the most Aboriginal electorates in Australia. The member for Lingiari is in the chamber, and I acknowledge him, as well as the members for Leichhardt, Grey and Kalgoorlie. Those five members have done a lot of talking with and walking with Aboriginal constituents over the years. Perhaps the length of this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2004 and the number of contributions—I think there have been about 15 speakers—prove that the first Australians have strong representation here in the national parliament. Members with a variety of views and a variety of inputs have contributed to this debate. It is an important debate. I want to thank all members. I wish to also table a couple of minor corrections to the explanatory memorandum.

I will begin by expressing deep disappointment at aspects of this debate. Initially the government drew strength from believing that the opposition, the Australian Labor Party, was genuinely interested in taking the road less travelled, to look with a vision for a better future for our first peoples. Instead, sadly, we now have an opposition that is using this issue—the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—as a pawn in a political strategy to differentiate itself from the Howard government, in an effort to try to score some political points. Perhaps some would see this as the biggest backflip since Methuselah was a young man. I do not know. Either way, I do not think it is going to wash with the Australian public.

Sadly, we have seen yet again a political party that presumes it can win the next election and form a government that is lacking in much detail. I think the lack of detail in itself underscores a complete lack of commitment to the real task ahead. It is clear that the opposition has completely misunderstood this bill. Indeed, it does not seem interested in reading the bill in the true spirit in which it was intended—that is, as an opportunity to seize the day and to truly empower the Indigenous people, the first Australians, the first people of this country. This bill is designed to be a turning point in Australia's history, towards reconciliation. Instead, the Australian Labor Party is squandering this precious opportunity for its own political and, dare I say, cynical ends.

Labor says that the consequential amendments are profound and need further scrutiny. This is a nonsense. The profound changes will be achieved through administrative changes that will take place on 1 July 2004, a few weeks from now, regardless of the delaying tactics of the Australian Labor Party. I submit to you that Labor has been listening yet again to the wrong people: the vested interests and, no doubt, many of the ATSIC commissioners who have behaved so badly that support for what they are doing could only come from them. Labor has not been listening to those Indigenous peoples who desperately want change, such as those whom the member for Kennedy was talking about. Instead of looking to the future, Labor has again done nothing but hark back to old reports as a reason to create more reports. In the meantime, Indigenous peoples languish and nothing changes; there is no advance for them.

The Labor Party talk about the terrible circumstances that many Indigenous people face. But that was a legacy that this government inherited. We have to try to break this cycle. But where is Labor's vision? From this debate it is clear that they simply do not have one or choose not to have one. We agree that the problems we face are not the fault of ATSIC alone. It is not a blame game. We have all in different ways failed to get the sorts of results that Indigenous people and indeed all Australians want. But this parliament has an obligation to change that. The status quo simply is not working. It is time to draw up a new map, a new model.

This government is serious about reducing Indigenous disadvantage. It has spent a record $2.9 billion on Indigenous-specific programs this year, which is 39 per cent more in real terms than that spent in the last years of the Keating government. It has taken real steps in reducing the disadvantage felt by Indigenous Australians in education, employment, health and housing compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. The proportion of Indigenous children who stay on at school through to year 12 has risen from 29.2 per cent in 1996 to 39.1 per cent in 2003. Between the 1996 and the 2001 census, the unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians fell from 22.7 per cent to 20 per cent. Funding for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Program stands at more than $280 million in 2004-05, which is more than double, in real terms, the amount allocated in 1995-96. Between the 1996 and the 2001 census, Indigenous home ownership increased from 30.8 per cent to 32.2 per cent.

Throughout this debate, we have also heard repeated vilification of the Prime Minister, yet it is this Prime Minister—John Howard, the member for Bennelong—who has taken a leadership role with the Council of Australian Governments to advance reconciliation and reduce disadvantage. We are basing our approach on the lessons learnt in the COAG trials—independently assessed as making great ground when it comes to Indigenous infant mortality and the basic health requirements of Indigenous communities, even in the most remote parts of Australia.

Labor talk about an apology, but what have they done in a practical sense? The government has provided $120 million for real initiatives to address these issues, such as the link-up network, counselling and parenting programs, cultural and language programs, a records preservation project and a national oral history project. They are meaningful outcomes. The opposition continue to dredge up their views on native title. The 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 have resulted in the volume of claims being rationalised and the claim processes being streamlined. Most recently, the government provided Reconciliation Australia with a capital injection of $15 million. Reconciliation Place has been constructed in the parliamentary triangle at a cost of over $6 million. My colleague Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, yesterday presided at a very emotional ceremony there with original Australians. But it is not good enough to keep working within this same flawed framework designed by Labor. That is why we are going beyond abolishing ATSIC to introduce some radical reforms.

The member for Fraser has said that Indigenous Australians are emotionally attached to ATSIC but, in actual fact, there has been very little adverse reaction to the abolition of ATSIC. Members of the opposition have also said that there should be more public consultation before we act but, again, nothing could be further from the truth. During the review, there were two major rounds of public consultation. A web site was set up and 8,000 copies of the public discussion paper were mailed out. The panel met with a wide range of stakeholders across the nation, including each of the 35 ATSIC regional councils, and received 156 written submissions. A number of regional councils chose to invite community members to participate. The panel also met with some interested individuals. The public consultations revealed widespread disillusionment and dissatisfaction with ATSIC on the part of Indigenous Australians.

The opposition have also spoken at length about what they call mainstreaming. They describe it as assimilationist and returning to the past. We say that all government departments have a role to play. The Labor Party says government departments have always failed Indigenous people. We say there is more that should be done.

Mr Snowdon —What have you done about it? Absolutely nothing! It is fraudulent.

Mr HARDGRAVE —Clearly, they continue to not be listening. They want to yell and they want to scream, but they do not want to listen. We are not abolishing special programs and we are putting machinery in place to make sure that all government departments and agencies are taking up their responsibilities. Many of the Indigenous programs that mainstream agencies will manage are delivered now by Aboriginal organisations, and they will be in the future. These are simply Labor scare tactics—the big voice with no substance and no detail.

In fact, it was Labor that also mainstreamed Indigenous health programs when it recognised that ATSIC was failing, but it did only part of the job. It left the other programs hanging. It did not put in place the machinery that we are proposing to put in place to make certain that all government departments are accountable. In the Northern Territory where the member for Lingiari comes from, his own Labor government has mainstreamed the management of programs as have almost all states and territories. In general, the states and territories support what we are proposing. It has only been the federal Labor Party that has persisted with this separatist approach.

Whole-of-government leadership and coordination will be a key feature of our approach and will be provided by a ministerial task force. Secretaries of departments with responsibilities for Indigenous-specific services will be held directly accountable for the successes and/or failures of programs and services. Indigenous coordination centres at the local level will be places where Indigenous communities can expect a whole-of-government response to their needs. All government agencies will now be responsible for 100 per cent of Australians 100 per cent of the time. First Australians deserve first-class service from all government agencies.

Arrangements for transfer of the programs are well under way. It is obvious where most of the programs will go. The location of some minor programs may change before 1 July 2004, and final administrative details will be provided shortly. Those few programs that are being transferred to agencies outside the Commonwealth are also covered in the bill. Let me also make it clear that any assets held in trust by ATSIC and transferred to the Commonwealth or to anyone else will continue to be held in trust. Item 191(4) makes that clear. The housing fund and the majority of housing and business loans will be transferred to Indigenous Business Australia. The money in the regional land fund and ATSIC land holdings will be transferred to the Indigenous Land Corporation. Land-holdings will continue to be divested.

The government is not seeking to replace ATSIC with another government imposed representative body. Such bodies have not been effective in the past. Other countries with Indigenous populations such as the USA and Canada do not have such government established bodies. It would be far more consistent with Indigenous self-management for Indigenous people to develop and establish their own representative bodies. Indeed, the fact that so many members spoke on this bill proves that even the broad representative mechanisms of this place are perfectly part of the process of representing Australians of Aboriginal descent.

Mr HARDGRAVE —The Australian Labor Party want to speak with a big voice, but there is no detail to their proposal. They are not providing any detail to any proposal. They are looking for the big wedge, and the big voice drives it. The national Indigenous council, which is not meant to be a representative body, will include Indigenous leaders with expertise and knowledge on a range of issues affecting Indigenous people. Indigenous people will continue to participate in the design and delivery of programs. We on this side, the Liberal Party in particular, have never been afraid to embrace full representation of all people of this country in this place. I was proud to know the late Senator Neville Bonner, who represented my state in the other place.

Labor say that our reforms go beyond the abolition of ATSIC. They need to. What Labor do not understand is that many of the changes will be implemented administratively. We will do so on 1 July 2004. Unfortunately, the transfer of additional funds and functions to Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Office of Evaluation and Audit will be delayed. These are positive changes that would benefit Indigenous people.

Mr Snowdon —Who says?

Mr HARDGRAVE —The three agencies concerned would tell you that, if you bothered to ask. Indigenous Business Australia, despite what the member for Fraser and, indeed, the member for Lingiari say, wants the housing fund. If Labor had, in fact, read the bill they would recognise that the housing fund would be quarantined within Indigenous Business Australia. The Office of Evaluation and Audit performed an important role within ATSIC. We want to extend that role to all agencies delivering Indigenous-specific programs. This is a worthwhile mechanism of accountability.

The Indigenous Land Corporation will take on responsibility for the regional land fund, previously administered by ATSIC. ATSIC's rural property holdings will be better managed by the ILC and will continue to be divested to Indigenous communities. The opposition, the Labor Party, are concerned that the Torres Strait Islander Advisory Board will be abolished—more scare tactics. In fact, the board have been saying for some time that they are frustrated that ATSIC has not given their people an adequate voice. The arrangement under ATSIC did not work. Mainland Torres Strait Islanders, under our proposal, will be included in the national Indigenous council. We want to hear their views about how their voices can best be heard at the regional and local level. The opposition mistakenly believe that the Indigenous representative on the National Health and Medical Research Council will be removed. That is simply not correct. We are only removing the requirement that the person be nominated by ATSIC. Labor would see the discredited and dysfunctional ATSIC board continue indefinitely at a considerable cost to the taxpayer.

Labor have shown that they are not committed to the abolition of ATSIC. They are opening the gates to their old mates, their cronies, to carve out a bleak future for Indigenous Australians. This is Labor's Clayton's abolition. No radical change for them. They would simply want to change the labels. What would a future ATSIC look like under Labor? More black armbands; more of the same. Indigenous people have every right to be concerned about what Labor are proposing. Labor will abolish ATSIC and replace it with more of the same. They will change from one nationally elected board to another elected board. They will abolish ATSIS and roll its functions back to their new commission. Regional councils will continue much as they do now, regardless of what people want at the local level. It would go on and on, and we would end up with 35 mini ATSICs instead of one. That is Labor's plan. It is simply not good enough for Labor to pretend to the Australian public that they intend to abolish ATSIC. They really do not have the guts to do what needs to be done.

In summary, the bill will make major changes to the Australian government's institutional structures in Indigenous affairs to improve the lives of our first Australians. We will provide better arrangements for involving Indigenous people at national and local levels in the determination of priorities and policies related to issues affecting them. The opposition talk about models of empowerment—models which empower some people but in fact disempower the vast majority of Indigenous Australians. They might look after their mates, their cronies; we want to look after the silent majority of Indigenous Australians. The opposition say that we are motivated by some ideology, but the ATSIC model, of course, was based on the ideology of a previous failed Labor government. It failed. Indigenous Australians will tell you that.

This issue should be above politics. We thought it was. The Australian Labor Party led the public to believe that it was. Only a few months ago the Leader of the Opposition was saying, `We'll abolish ATSIC', to try and get ahead of the game as far as the government's own agenda was concerned. But again the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him have shown themselves to be so lacking in detail as to be dangerous as a potential government of Australia. We cannot let the failed ideology of the past continue. We cannot let that failed ideology of the past stand in the way of a better future for Indigenous Australians. This is important legislation. It should be above the partisan politics being played by those opposite. We lament the fact that they seek to mislead the Australian public in this way. We commend this particular bill to the House. I table some minor amendments.

Mr Katter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I strongly object to the first part of the ALP amendment but strongly support the second part.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lindsay)—Does the member for Kennedy have a point of order?

Mr Katter —No, it is not a point of order; it is a request for a procedural way of handling this motion, so we can split the amendment into part 1 and part 2.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Member for Kennedy, I suggest that you try to make a point of order and say what you want to say, otherwise I cannot recognise you at this time.

Mr Katter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to request, and I think the House would like to request, that the ALP amendment be broken into two. I object to part 1, but I very strongly support part 2. I would like to have the right to be able to vote that way in the House, so I would like to request the Deputy Speaker to have a procedure whereby we could vote on part 1 separately to a vote on part 2.

Dr Emerson —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I think this is procedurally unsound. In any event, the Labor opposition has no intention of splitting the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for Rankin. The member for Kennedy—

Mr Katter —Mr Deputy Speaker, my request still stands.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand. I advise the member for Kennedy that under standing order 68 the chair is constrained in this matter, in that when the minister closes the debate there is no further opportunity to make any further amendments. So unfortunately I have to rule your point of order out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for Kennedy. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question put.