Leon Rebello (McPherson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Family and domestic violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is a grave and an urgent issue. But acknowledging the problem is not the same as solving it. The motion in front of me today asks the House to commend a government that has consistently failed to deliver the real outcomes. The motion commends announcements, plans and funding, but it actually ignores the real-world outcomes.

The government is very good at launching plans but far less effective at delivering results, because, as we all know, more Labor announcements and more spending don't automatically mean better outcomes. We continue to see national plans, action frameworks, advisory groups and consultation processes, but, despite all of this, many of the key Closing the Gap targets are not actually going the right direction. They're going backwards. Community safety outcomes are not improving at the pace that our communities expect. Announcing the program is not the same as delivering a result.

The motion asks the House to commend new funding and new programs, but what we've seen is that the government's developed a pattern of avoiding scrutiny when it comes to existing Indigenous programs. For the first time in 17 years, there were no standalone Senate estimates hearings for cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. We've seen the deliberate removal of a key mechanism here, one that's designed to test spending, to examine outcomes and to hold ministers and their departments accountable. We all know that we need to make sure that the taxpayer money that is being invested in these programs is actually getting the result not only for taxpayers but for the communities and the individuals to whom the programs are targeted. This isn't administrative oversight. It's a conscious decision which avoids scrutiny. The government has shut down dedicated scrutiny in one of the most critical policy areas. They've reduced visibility over how billions in taxpayer funds are being used.

Now, what have we seen in terms of the spending in this space? We've seen a government that's allocated $218.3 million in funding for these services. But, given the track record of the government, it would be remiss of me not to question whether this spending will be effective—because what have we seen in the broader pattern of this government's spending on Indigenous programs? We've seen billions spent across Indigenous programs, and I'm sure that that is out of genuine concern. I don't think those on this side of the House would question that. But we have seen worsening outcomes. We've seen the $300 million A Better, Safer Future for Central Australia Plan, but we don't think that that's actually made Central Australia better or safer. We've seen a $730,000 bill for the First Nations ambassador's travel expenses over just two years, but I'm still waiting to hear the answer to the question about what outcomes that spending delivered on.

Importantly, we get up in this place—and we're very privileged to be here—once every year and we talk about Closing the Gap and Closing the Gap targets, but there's very little effort that goes into assessing how we're going on those targets and calling out the real issues that are preventing us from meeting those targets. We've got four—just four—of the 19 Closing the Gap targets that are on track. If you look at the key indicators that are going backwards, these are serious areas that should be of concern. We're seeing key indicators going backwards in terms of incarceration, suicide, child development, out-of-home care and others.

We as the coalition want to work constructively with the government on this because it's in the interests of all Australians. But we need to make sure that we're putting forward policies that don't just congratulate ourselves like this motion does but that stand in a way that's going to make lives better for Indigenous Australians—not just throw money at problems that are not being solved. I say to the government that standing here commending the government for spending on a new program, a new initiative or a new framework is not necessarily something that we should be proud of. I'd like to see the results first, and then I'd be more than happy to support a motion like this.

See this speech in context