Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll contextualise my comment. The notion of a guinea pig is common parlance for an experiment. This was a public policy experiment. It was a trial. It was trial also, as you well know, that was supposed to be subject to proper evaluation. As the Auditor-General found, your program was never evaluated. You kept saying you were going to do an independent evaluation and you never did. So it was an experiment where you didn't even have the guts to go and collect the evidence and the results. So instead we're still here, after all these years, dealing with innuendo, assertion and correlation, which is not causation—it's just disgraceful.

But back to the point: the opposition spent years promising the world to these communities. They promised they were going to turn up with investments but they did nothing. Your second reading amendment—let's be clear—is, in practical terms, opposing $158 million of investment in these four communities. Speaker after speaker on that side is getting up and telling us about the social problems these four communities are experiencing. Yet their second reading amendment is really saying, 'We don't want to do anything about it,' because if the House voted for their amendment there would be no investment in these communities. The members who spread this nonsense should come in here, apologise and correct the record—or, at the very least, fix their ridiculous second reading amendment.

Those opposite had no plan for funding services beyond 30 June this year. The few services they did put in lapsed on 30 June this year—just like myGov, My Health Record, the critical national cultural institutions and all the other things we heard about during question time. It's another example of how they booby trapped the budget. They created fictional surpluses in the out years by not providing funding in years 2, 3 and 4 for things that were critical and had to continue.

In the East Kimberley region there are now a total of 11 support services funded by DSS, including the Strong and Resilient Communities Program, A Better Life, the family safety national plan, the Children and Parent Support services. The amendment the opposition has moved would see that funding stop. In the Goldfields, Anglicare Western Australia is funded for social and emotional wellbeing through the Strong and Resilient Communities service. Funding for this service is about $450,000, and it will be extended until 24 June if this bill passes without the second reading amendment. In Ceduna there are 15 support services funded by DSS. In the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region there are 17 support services funded by DSS.

So let's be very clear—I'll make the point one more time, Madam Deputy Speaker: what has been said by the opposition in debate, and what has been asserted by the opposition in the second reading amendment, is demonstrably false. I'm not allowed to call it a lie, so we'll just stick with 'false'. That's what it is, and they should withdraw or, at the very least, change their amendment and correct the record. If they vote for their second-reading amendment, they are voting to not provide funding to these communities. That's the choice they're making; that's the proposition which they're putting forward. I don't know—you could muse on one hand that they're just stupid and don't realise the practical impact, or you could muse on the other hand that they do. I'm not sure which is worse, but we'll leave that as a point of reflection.

I'd also note that under the government's approach the new, enhanced services smart card will not be privatised. Services Australia public servants will provide all aspects of the client interface under the government's new approach. People will interact with a government department, not a private financial services business who knows their details. When they want to change their PIN, check their balance or seek permission for things, they'll deal with a public servant, not a private company.

The final thing I'd just note is the Greens amendments. Look, they're typically populist. They no doubt will play well to a certain section of the community on social media, and the meme machine will crank up. Apparently that's the entire point of parliament for the Greens political party, to get social media memes to pump out. Occasionally they move a ridiculous amendment where the Liberal and Labor parties have to vote together because it's just so patently ridiculous. Then they get that little photo each week they put up, 'The old parties are voting together.' We know the business model. It's similar to Pauline Hanson's, actually. They hate hearing that.

But the practical impact of their amendments, let's be clear, pre-empt community consultation. They don't want the government to sit down with Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory, if the Greens party get their way. They don't want the government to actually go out and finish the consultation on income management that we committed to and are undertaking. Bizarrely, they also pre-empt their own Senate inquiry, the one they established with the opposition. They've set up a Senate inquiry to look at this, but now they're moving amendments in here which would undercut their own Senate inquiry and community consultation. But that doesn't matter, because all those words won't fit on a meme, will they?

They'd also mean that about 4,000 people in the Northern Territory and Cape York would be exited against the community's wishes, ahead of consultation—not a properly planned exit; just kicked off. They don't allow for the important referral pathways which really matter for states and territories. The Greens amendments would see the role of the Cape York Family Responsibilities Commission undermined. I had a Zoom with Noel Pearson, actually, before the election, when I was working on the policy around the abolition of the cashless debit card, and we provided assurances—we talked this through—that those collective decisions through the FRC would continue. They can under the government but not the Greens.

They'd also see the child protection authorities in states and territories no longer able to make referrals. They're critical referrals made for the benefit of individuals and contributing to meeting the needs of children under their care. They'd no longer see the people on the banned alcohol register in the Northern Territory able to be referred. I do encourage the Greens not to persist with these ridiculous amendments. Accept that they're a stunt. Stick to your own process. Just be consistent with yourself. Wait for the community consultation and the Senate committee report.

I commend the bill to the House, condemn the opposition's second-reading amendment and ask them to do better.

See this speech in context