Senator O'BRIEN (2:00 PM) —My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to her answer to my question yesterday in which she pilloried the concept that ATSIC and ATSIS might be brought back together. Didn't the government devote over $1 million of Indigenous funding to the review of ATSIC which specifically recommended that ATSIC and ATSIS be brought back together as a single organisation with the elected and administrative arms—I quote from the report—`reunified'? Has the minister rejected the outcome of the $1 million ATSIC review? Or was the review no more than a sideshow for the government, albeit an expensive one?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) —Senator, yesterday I did not pillory the suggestion of a reunification. I asked you if that was the policy you were seeking to advance, but hiding behind. So, first up, I do not accept your variation on a theme. I simply asked you if you were trying to get away with advocating another policy without having the stomach to get up and do it. The ATSIC review did recommend that ATSIS be placed back in ATSIC, but that there be separation of powers. I personally do not believe that you can effectively have separation of powers within the same organisation—other people do. My view is not the only view to be taken into account here. I am consulting with ATSIC commissioners, members of the government and others as to what should be done across the board in relation to ATSIC.

The Prime Minister is right when he says that ATSIC has not served the Indigenous community well. But I add that none of us—I have said this on plenty of occasions, and I said it before the Prime Minister made those remarks—whatever party persuasion, whatever level of government, can say that what we have done over decades has served Indigenous Australians well. If that were the case, Indigenous Australians would not face the problems they now face. That is my view, it is the view of many people in the government and I believe it is the view of most people in the community. So I put it to ATSIC that the status quo is not an option.

What we are doing now is not delivering on the ground. You can ask anybody whether they like being a commissioner or whether they think it should be designed this way or another, but go out to Halls Creek or Oombulgurri or Yirrkala or any of the remote communities and ask them whether ATSIC is serving them well. But that is, in a sense, an irrelevant question. Ask them whether they, personally, are getting value for money—not just the money that this government is spending now but also what the state governments and local governments are spending on the delivery of services. Are they getting value for money? Have they ever believed they are getting value for money? The answer will be no. I have a brief opportunity to play a part in changing that policy—and hopefully to make a difference—and I intend to take it.

Senator O'BRIEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister's answer. I took her comments yesterday to be dismissing the concept of reunification, hence the question today. I take it from the minister's answer that she believes that it is impractical. Can the minister indicate if she intends to respond to the review in a public way and when she intends respond, given that this review has cost $1 million of Indigenous funding? Certainly there is a question about value for the money being paid—particularly the vast amount of money Mr Hannaford was paid for his role in the review. Can the minister tell the Senate when there will be a full response by the government to this matter, given that she now indicates that there is a short space of time in which to attend to this matter?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) —I do not think it will come as any surprise to indicate that there is a short period of time to respond to the ATSIC review for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is when the next ATSIC elections are. It being an election year, there is necessarily a limited amount of time on the legislative timetable. My absolute commitment is to make sure that anybody who participates in this debate understands that we have all failed—that is the most pessimistic way to put it. But none of us, of any political persuasion and at any level of government, have been successful, and we all have to be looking for a better way. That is not to absolve ATSIC; they are a part of this—but so is everybody else.