Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Gerard Neesham is a celebrated Australian football player and coach in Australia. He played in five West Australian Football League premiership teams and is a member of the West Australian Football Hall of Fame. He's a former coach of Fremantle. He played for the Sydney Swans as well as other clubs throughout his celebrated career. But the best thing that he perhaps will be remembered for is the fact that he established Clontarf. He steps down from his position as chief executive officer of that organisation this year.

I'll give you a few statistics about Clontarf, which gives hope to young Aboriginal people. It supports 12½ thousand students at 161 academies, including 1,100 year 12 students, final year students who but for Clontarf would not, perhaps, be sitting for those final exams and who would not, perhaps, have the opportunities that will be afforded them because they've stayed the course at school. And that is in no small measure due to the work of Gerard Neesham. I thank him for the role he has played to enable young Aboriginal boys, in particular, to be the best versions of themselves.

In his remarks on retiring from the position he acknowledged some key people he has worked with in his 26 years of service to Clontarf: Ross Kelly, the founding chair; and Craig Brierty, who has stood alongside him for most of the journey. He said that he appreciates the role that government and corporate partners have played, and the dedicated staff, past and present. He also said this:

I would like to acknowledge

…   …   …

… most importantly, the thousands of young men who have been Clontarf members. Your stories of success, resilience and contribution to your communities are the true measure of Clontarf's legacy.

It's organisations such as this and people such as Gerard Neesham OAM who, I think, hold the key.

I appreciate that the government is pushing for a national commissioner. This bill, the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, and the related bill transition the national commission from its current status as an executive agency to an independent statutory agency. The legislation defines the commissioner's objectives as promoting, improving and supporting the rights, safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children while driving greater accountability for policies impacting this group. That's what the legislation says. But will it? That's the question.

We all want what is best for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We all need to work towards the common goal of ensuring that they are not overrepresented in incarceration rates, that they have a future—the sort of future that Clontarf would lay out for them,

The Commissioner will be—I will say 'will be' because we know that this legislation will pass this House, given the Labor government's huge majority of 50-plus seats. It may be amended in the Senate, but who would know? The bill has a financial impact of $33½ million. Whilst that might sound like a reasonably large figure in the scheme of the money that goes towards Indigenous issues, it's not. That money would be well spent if the commission was not building yet another bureaucracy, duplicating much of the work of existing Commonwealth, state and territory bodies. That's where I think the issue for this particular legislation and this particular initiative lies. It does duplicate the work already being done by existing bodies such as the National Children's Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner with the Australian Human Rights Commission. We want to see the best for people who, as members quite correctly point out, are the oldest continuous culture on Earth. We want to see their youth in particular being given the same opportunities as anybody else in this country. But does this bill do this? I'm not so certain.

The new position is essentially about consultation, providing advice to government and undertaking research and advocacy responsibilities that already exist within roles across government. I do wonder, not just with this bill but with others besides, that we are seeing a constant decay and erosion of responsibilities that once lay firmly and squarely and fairly with a minister. Under the Westminster system, ministers carry a lot of responsibility, as they should, and ministers are elected and then appointed by prime ministers through the cabinet process. They wear that responsibility not just as a badge of honour but as a duty to improving the outcomes and the futures of Australians. If we as a parliament keep watering down that level of responsibility by people who are ministers of the Crown, then what we're doing is just giving rubber stamp value to the role that they play.

We can't have the bureaucrats down the hill running the whole show. I have every faith and trust in the public servants, who serve us very, very well. They do. I saw the best of public servants during COVID-19, when this country was very much facing the prospect of losing tens of thousands of people. Public servants such as Steven Kennedy, Simon Atkinson and others did a mighty and amazing job—and also, no doubt, in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander space. What we saw during that time was vaccines going out to remote Aboriginal communities at the same time, or at almost the same time, as in metropolitan Australia. That was right, and that was just, and that was overseen by public servants.

Public servants aren't elected by the people of Australia, but ministers are elected by a process. We all go to an election, we put our name on a ballot paper, and the Australian people vote accordingly. We can't keep watering down and eroding the value and the responsibility of a minister. This is what I believe this legislation and other bills that the Labor government is bringing before this House and the Senate are doing. That's what's happening. We must protect our ministers' responsibility. People say that ministers will have too much power. No, they won't. If they err—I see the minister at the table, the member for Sydney, smiling.

See this speech in context