Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Choice in Childcare and Early Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026 and the accompanying transitional provisions bill. Let me begin by saying this clearly: every child in this country deserves to be safe, to be supported and to have the opportunity to thrive. This is, of course, especially true of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young children, who continue to face some of the most complex challenges in our society.

As the shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence and the shadow minister for choice in child care and early learning, I see firsthand the importance of getting policy right in these early and critical years. The truth is that the first years of a child's life shape everything that comes after. If we get those years right, if we support families, strengthen communities and intervene early, we can change the trajectory of a child's life—and by 'we' I mean the community, families and society itself. If we get it wrong, the consequences that follow can follow for decades. This is why this debate matters. It's why we must be honest about what this bill does and, importantly, what it does not do.

The government says that this bill is about improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, but, when you look closely, what it actually does is create another layer of bureaucracy in Canberra. It takes an existing role, one that is already operating, and elevates it into an independent statutory agency with expanded powers, extended scope and expanded cost—more than $33 million over the forward estimates, another commissioner, another office, another set of reports and another set of consultations.

The question that we must ask is this: why is it being rushed now? The Prime Minister announced this body in February 2024, yet the terms of reference have only been brought to parliament a year after the executive agency began operations and five months after the inaugural commissioner's work started. The children and young people of our Indigenous communities need real results, not more roles, yet this government continues to prop up funding announcements and bureaucratic appointments that their continued failures can hide behind. Will this independent agency actually improve outcomes? Will it reduce the number of children entering out-of-home care? Will it reduce family violence? Will it increase school attendance? Will it ensure that more children are developmentally on track when they start school?

We know that the data tells a very confronting story. Youth detentions are up, preschool attendance is down, and more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are entering out-of-home care. This is no more a prevalent issue than in my home state of Western Australia, where reports of child sexual abuse submitted by medical professionals show that about five per cent of incidents occur in the Kimberley region—a region which only represents one per cent of the WA population. The state's review of family and domestic violence showed that Indigenous people account for 35 per cent of victims, despite being only 3.3 per cent of the state's population. These are not abstract statistics. We hear lots of statistics in this place. When you think about it, these are real lives—our most precious of lives, our children—as well as real families and real communities.

These stats are telling us something very important. What they're telling us is that what we're doing is not working. The answer cannot simply be to just create another body. The answer cannot be to just add another voice, and the answer cannot be to produce yet another report.

We already have the National Children's Commissioner and the Social Justice Commissioner. We already have state and territory based Indigenous children's commissioners. We already have departments tasked with consultation. So what gap exactly is this bill filling? If the answer is not clear, if the functions are not already being performed, then what we are doing is not reform; it's consultation fatigue and it's duplication that does not deliver outcomes. In fact, it risks doing the very opposite. It risks creating confusion. It risks creating overlap. It risks shifting responsibility away from those who are actually accountable for delivering results on the ground. And most importantly, it risks taking resources away from frontline support.

If we are serious about improving outcomes for children, we must start earlier. We must support families before they reach that crisis point. We must strengthen the protective factors that keep children safe and connected. We must ensure that parents have a genuine choice in how they care for and raise their children. We must ask: What makes this body that this bill seeks to establish different? What does it do to make the situation different? How will it reach children in remote communities? How will it ensure their voices are heard, that their voices are not just documented but actually acted upon? Consultation on its own is not enough. What matters is what follows, and what follows must be action, not more bureaucracy.

The coalition's position is clear. We will always prioritise practical outcomes over symbolic gestures. We will back policies that strengthen families, not expand bureaucracy. We will ensure the funding goes to organisations with a proven track record of delivering real results. We will focus on the fundamentals, because we know that school attendance is one of the strongest protective factors in a child's life. We know that stable family environments reduce the risk of harm. And we know that early intervention works. These are not new ideas; they are evidence based. They are common sense approaches, and they are where our efforts should be directed.

Let me also say this. Opposing this bill does not mean that we are indifferent to the challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Quite the opposite. What it's saying is that we take those challenges seriously—so seriously that we expect real action when it comes to delivering results. We want to see solutions that actually work. We cannot afford to continue to go down a path where we respond to the worsening outcomes with more structures, with more processes and with more bureaucracy. This only causes delay and avoids getting the action where it's needed. So for this reason, and for the other reasons that I have outlined here tonight, the coalition will be opposing this bill.