Posts

“The Voice” is pure racism

Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I propose there should not be a new body called the Voice. The Voice, if a referendum approves, would constitutionally enshrine differential treatment based on skin colour or on identification with a race. I’m completely opposed to introducing such a divisive, discriminatory concept that is racist.

At this stage there has been no detail telling voters how this Voice would be exercised and what obligations would need to be met, nor by whom. Locking the Voice into the Constitution would perpetuate parasitic white and black activists, consultants, academics, bureaucrats and politicians in the Aboriginal industry. It’s known that activists want the Voice to have significant influence on creation of laws. It’s not known how much consultation would be needed before the laws would be made. It’s not known how much it will cost to implement a run. It is clear this detail will not be in the referendum question put to voters.

I’ve travelled widely across remote Queensland and listened to many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, from Deebing Creek in the south, across Cape York and to Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. Few of the people I spoke with or listened to had even heard of the Voice.

Last week I met with a delegation of Aboriginal leaders strongly opposing the Voice because these real Aboriginal leaders say it’s racist. They fear the Voice will divide the community into two distinct groups: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. When they say, ‘In reality we are all Australians,’ doesn’t proposing the Voice admit that the current 11 Aboriginals in federal parliament and the current National Indigenous Australians Agency are failing to represent Aboriginals?

I oppose perpetuating the Aboriginal industry suppressing Australians. Instead of treating people differently because of race and entrenching racism, we need to ensure Aboriginal Australians can access the same opportunities given to all people within our beautiful nation. We are all Australian. We are one nation.

/17 Comments/by

Sovereignty? Why has the government appointed a First Nations AMBASSADOR?

Has the government appointed a First Nations Ambassador because they are pushing for a separate sovereign nation to be established for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders?

That’s what many of you have asked. It’s just another example of the push by Government to divide us on race which One Nation will continue to oppose.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and thus today to Senator Farrell. An ambassador is a person sent as the chief representative of his or her own government in another country. Given that you have appointed a First Nations ambassador, does the government believe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are a separate, sovereign nation?

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question and your earlier advice about the fact that you were going to ask that question of me. The Albanese government is committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full and embedding Indigenous perspectives, experiences and interests in our foreign policy. Australia’s foreign policy should reflect who we are: home to more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth.

We have, as you have rightly said, appointed Mr Justin Mohamed as Australia’s first, inaugural, Ambassador for First Nations People. He will lead an office for First Nations engagement within DFAT to listen to and work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Mr Mohamed has worked for decades in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, social justice and reconciliation, in roles spanning the Aboriginal community, government and corporate sectors. Our First Nations foreign policy will help grow First Nations trade and investment. Having had the opportunity to discuss an Indigenous role in trade and investment, it is a significant issue of interest for other countries—and, I might add in that area, tourism as well. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Will you guarantee that the First Nations ambassador, Mr Mohamed, will not make any representations to foreign countries or bodies on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? A yes or no is sufficient.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for very helpfully suggesting how I might answer your question! With due respect, I’ll answer it in the way that I would like to and that I think addresses your point quite directly. This appointment is about making sure that Australian foreign policy tells our full story: home to peoples of more than 300 ancestries and the oldest continuous culture on earth. Our projecting this reality
of modern Australia to the world enables us to find common ground and alignment with other countries so we can work together towards the region we want—open, peaceful, prosperous and respectful of sovereignty. First Nations’ connection to the countries of our region goes back thousands of years. They were the continent’s first diplomats and the first traders. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: City based, white-skinned activists imported the term ‘First Nations’ from Canada and installed it in our universities. The term has nothing to do with our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Given these facts, do you agree that it is insulting to call our Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders ‘First Nations’ and to appoint an ambassador using that term?

Senator FARRELL: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. No.

/2 Comments/by

Deals done on Voice Referendum don’t fix core issue

The Liberal/National party and Labor have done a backroom deal on the referendum machinery bill. This bill is more about technicalities of how voting will be organised at the referendum rather than the voice itself.

There are some proposed amendments that are very concerning. If they are incorporated, I won’t be able to support the bill.

None of this fixes the core issue about the voice to parliament. Anything that seperates us based on race is racist, #voteno.

Transcript

As a servant to the people Queensland and Australia, I note that this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 is about updating the mechanics of referendum voting, and is entirely appropriate and necessary. It has, though, unearthed yet another Labor Party deceit on its Voice proposal.

While many senators have chosen to speak about the Voice proposal itself, I will speak primarily about the bill’s mechanics.  My comments on the Voice proposal for now are that, if passed at a constitutional referendum, it will entrench and deepen the neglect and suppression of Aboriginals in our country.  

It will do so in favour of the Aboriginal industry, which fattens the bank accounts of parasitic white and black academics, consultants, lawyers, activists, ignorant and uncaring virtue-signallers, and politicians. That’s at the expense of taxpayers and everyday Aboriginals and communities across our nation. 

The flood of amendments from across the Senate reemphasises the need to update the referendum process. The amendments, though, include one that is very disturbing to me: namely, Senator Pocock’s addition of schedule 9, on the referendum pamphlet review panel. It flushes out yet another example of the teal Senator Pocock working with the Labor Party to advance Labor’s deceit.

This amendment is disguised as Senator Pocock’s and yet it seems to be, in reality, a Labor Party amendment attempting to enable Labor to take control of the referendum pamphlet’s content. Firstly, my understanding is that if this amendment is successful then a Labor minister, Ms Linda Burney, who has already declared support for the ‘yes’ case, will nominate a Labor controlled review panel that must approve the pamphlet’s contents.

There’s no requirement for a balanced view, and the panel can censor and exclude material. I suspect that the ‘no’ campaign material will be unfairly censored. The panel will include people who were part of the working groups in favour of the ‘yes’ campaign: academics and other ministerial appointments. So the panel will be weighted in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. 

Secondly, why is this panel not comprised of persons with an independent background?

Thirdly, why is the panel not designed to represent all the varied views from across all the parties and Independents in parliament, and, especially, from all across our nation? This is a terrible amendment, designed to appoint a pamphlet review panel whose purpose is to produce a biased pamphlet with taxpayer funding. It’s an abuse of taxpayer funds. This seems to be yet another example of teal Senator Pocock working for and serving the Labor Party.

While I will support this bill at the moment, and I will support most amendments, if the teal Pocock amendment is successful, I will oppose the bill. I cannot support such a dodgy amendment. I will wait, though, and listen to opposition speakers raising specific concerns regarding funding, tax deductibility, audits of campaigns, and security from international interference. 

The Labor-Greens-teal campaign for the Voice is becoming a train wreck for Labor. The Voice is a racist proposal that will divide the nation on race. It’s based on race. What happened to the fundamental principle of democracy that started with ancient Greece 3,000 years ago—namely, that every person has an equal voice and equal vote?

As we have seen with the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock behaviour in the Senate, guillotining and ramming through damaging bills with horrific future consequences for our nation in just the few months this government has been in power, the abolition and bypassing of democracy is yet another trait of this Albanese government that is a reincarnation of a Soviet style politburo.

History shows what happened to that after the people endured decades of needless, inhuman pain and suffering. 

In Australia we have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. We must stay as one nation made of people from many backgrounds, all with an equal voice. 

/by

Aboriginals aren’t victims, stop trying to be white saviour lefties

The current government is proposing the Voice to instil and make racism systemic, separating and dividing.

It follows and perpetuates a disgraceful legacy of paternalism and victimhood which harms all members of our Australian community

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I serve all people of Australia. I want to celebrate especially the Aboriginal people of this country. There is a higher proportion of Aboriginals in the NRL’s elite athletes, higher than across the community. There’s also a higher proportion in the AFL. Scientists, lawyers, parliamentarians, government—Aboriginals are part of these groups and doing a fine job. 

They’re doing well in business, people like Warren Mundine; in carers roles—people like police, nurses, doctors—and the previous speaker mentioned Steve Fordham from Blackrock Industries who’s doing a phenomenal job, and now he has been gutted by the bureaucracy. I note Ash Dodd in Queensland who is sponsoring the Collinsville coal fired power station project. Senators like Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle are telling the truth, which is so important. 

Senator Pauline Hanson is uneasy with praise but probably watching in her office. When I was first elected, I approached the office of our party in the suburb of Albion. I was met at the door in our car park by three Northern Territory Aboriginals who had come down specifically to meet with us because, they said, ‘Pauline Hanson is the only one who understands the Aboriginal plight and the only one willing to stand up and say so and speak out for what they need.’ I will say that, if the Howard government had adopted her policies, we would now have no gap or a little gap. The Caucasian and Aboriginal people I have met in travelling through every Cape York community and the people I have met in other Northern Territory communities are quietly getting on with it and doing a stellar job. 

They’re closing the gap. I’ll tell you about an Islander who was on a council in the Torres Strait. He told me that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap because the consultants that feed off this program actually have to maintain the gap in order to keep their money. That is what perpetuates the gap. 

There are many challenges our nation faces, and every problem I see around our country is due to government. I am ashamed of governments, state and federal, and churches who blindly assumed they knew what was best for the Aboriginals—good intentions maybe, but arrogantly and ignorantly paternalistic and patronising, cruel, damaging, stultifying. I am angry with the Aboriginal industry. Communities tell me of Noel Pearson interfering, land councils acting as effectively robber barons controlling land, water, resources and funds. Billions of dollars every year supposedly go to the people on the ground, but are interceded by these robber barons. The Aboriginal industry is perpetuating victimhood, but, worse, fomenting hate and separation because that’s what their industry is based on and they want it to continue. 

The current government is proposing the Voice to instil and make racism systemic, separating and dividing. It follows and perpetuates a disgraceful legacy of paternalism and victimhood which harms all members of our Australian community. Actions need to follow words. We need to unify, not separate. Solving problems requires listening to people to understand their needs. Giving people their freedom to get on with their lives builds responsibility and freedom. We need to give the Aboriginal people freedom, especially in the Aboriginal communities. Addressing all of Australia’s problems begins with acknowledging government as the cause of the problems, and the solution is getting government out of people’s lives, honouring and respecting our Commonwealth of Australia’s Constitution. 

I want and look forward to uniting Australia into one nation. Worst of all, the Voice will perpetuate the hollow, deceitful policies of Labor, the Greens and, to a lesser extent, the LNP. It’s a dishonest distraction that will perpetuate the gap, perpetuate the cruel infliction of punishment and deprivation. We need policies for lifting all Australians. 

That requires policies for restoring sovereignty, implementing sound and honest governance based on data and facts—honesty policy—and, first of all, listening to understand people’s needs. Then, instead of doing things to look good, actually do good.  

/21 Comments/by

Prime Minister hides embarrassing Voice answer from official transcript

Earlier this year the Albo had an embarrassing interview with Ben Fordham where he admitted he hadn’t even asked Australia’s Solicitor General for legal advice on the Voice to Parliament. But when the transcript of the interview was published, this embarrassing omission had been removed from the record of the interview. Genuine mistake or erasing the record because it is politically inconvenient?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: A transcript of the Prime Minister’s 18 January interview with Ben Fordham on radio 2GB was published to PM&C’s website. The transcript omitted a key statement by the Prime Minister on the Voice. Specifically, Ben Fordham asked, ‘So you got legal advice from the Solicitor-General?’ In response, the Prime Minister clearly said, ‘No.’ Yet this was omitted from the transcript. Would you agree that the transcript is not an accurate record of the interview, given that omission?

Mr D Williamson: I’ll ask Mr Martin to assist you on this issue.

Mr Martin: The role the department plays in transcripts is that we receive the transcript from the Prime

Minister’s office. The transcripts are undertaken within the Prime Minister’s office, and we publish it. We are aware of media follow-up and media interest in the nature of the transcript. The department doesn’t do any editing or have any involvement in the transcript itself. We note that the transcripts provided from the Prime Minister’s office are marked that they may have errors or exceptions, but, otherwise, we don’t do any editing on them. We just publish them.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the responsibility with the PM&C or the Prime Minister’s office?

Mr Martin: We receive them from the Prime Minister’s office.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department reviewed the incident?

Mr Martin: We’re aware of the incident.

Senator ROBERTS: Has the Prime Minister’s office reviewed the incident?

Mr Martin: We haven’t had any specific engagement with the office on this matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please provide to the committee on notice all documents the department holds in regard to this interview and the publishing of it?

Mr Martin: I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Can the public trust what you publish as being an accurate account of the Prime Minister’s statements, given that you don’t check what he actually said?

Mr Martin: Our role is to ensure that they are published properly and in a timely fashion to the Prime Minister’s website and that’s what we do.

Senator ROBERTS: So you do no checking? We have to rely upon the Prime Minister’s office for the accuracy?

Mr Martin: It’s not part of the department’s role to check them.

Senator ROBERTS: That doesn’t reflect well on the Prime Minister’s office, especially in a critical matter like the Voice. People are already saying, Senator Wong, that there’s not enough information about the Voice.  And now what has come out has been inaccurate.

Senator Wong: Firstly, on there not being enough information, I’d make a few points. There’s actually been a long process of this being discussed publicly, whether it’s from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which identified Voice, Treaty and Truth as being important. Then we had the Prime Minister at Garma, who made clear the proposed words, which he said are a draft. He said this is about recognition and it’s about consultation. My recollection is the Referendum Working Group has put out a number of principles. And, as I answered in the Senate, in the event that a referendum passes, I’ve made the point that the parliament legislates, of which you are a part. So I think that some of these criticisms perhaps actually, fundamentally, go to people not supporting the Voice. I have a different view. I think people having their say isn’t a bad thing. On transcripts, I don’t actually have any. I’ll see if I can get you anything further, Senator Roberts. I would say to you I think all transcripts have E&OEs—errors and omissions excepted. I’ve seen mistakes in my transcripts—spelling mistakes et cetera. Generally my staff are very good, but afterwards I go: I think that’s actually a different word. There’s a judgement about getting something out and making sure it’s timely. But I will find out if there is anything further I can add.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator Wong.

/11 Comments/by

Is the ABC encouraging a race war?

While Local Alice Springs ABC reporters have been congratulated, the ABC has had to apologise for unbalanced reports from its capital city journalists that falsely left the impression a meeting of locals was about white supremacy.

Adding to that, the ABC presents Bruce Pascoe’s ‘Dark Emu’ book filled with exaggerations and some outright lies about aboriginal history on an education site for kids. The ABC receives over $1 billion of your money every year to present fair and balanced reporting, it doesn’t seem like value for money to me.

/23 Comments/by

Albanese would rather go to Bill Gates than Alice Springs

Albo is proving he’d rather clink champagne glasses with the elites over actually talking to Indigenous people about the violence they are facing in Alice Springs. It’s just more proof that the Voice to Parliament is just about looking good, not doing anything.

Transcript

Last Saturday Prime Minister Albanese met with billionaire Bill Gates at Kirribilli House to talk about opportunities for Bill Gates’ vaccine lobbying, software, agriculture and energy interests in Australia.

The meeting came as Bill Gates spent US$10bn buying new stock in Microsoft. Perhaps they talked about the use of Microsoft products to run Australian Parliament House secure email and data storage systems.

They did talk about the Albanese Government’s decision to give $230m to the Gates-founded Global Health, bringing Australia’s total contribution to just under a billion dollars.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has found time to meet with billionaires.

Only two weeks ago Anthony Albanese met for six hours with billionaire Lindsay Fox in his upmarket Portsea mansion, arriving from Geelong in Lindsay Fox’s own helicopter.

What deals were done there one can only wonder.

Anthony Albanese it seems has all the time in the world to meet with billionaires, yet only caves to meeting the residents of Alice Springs after days of relentless national media coverage.

It was the Albanese Government that lifted the ban on alcohol in Aboriginal Communities, now just months later we are seeing why that ban was needed in the first place.

The Government was warned this would happen at the time, and only a month after the ban was lifted the Daily Mail reported on the rising violence in Aboriginal Communities.

These kids are on the streets instead of at home for a reason.

Anthony Albanese has tried to run away from a problem he caused.

Prime Minister get your arse to Alice Springs and take Linda Burney with you, it’s about time she met with real Aboriginals. How about you actually do something instead of virtue signalling about the voice to Parliament.

Sort your mess out.

/21 Comments/by

Left turns on Lidia Thorpe for opposing the voice

Lidia Thorpe has a pattern of disrespect for the Senate, the Australian people and Australia itself. She must be accountable for those decisions. Yet, the only choice that bothered the left was her opposition to the indigenous voice to Parliament. It is only when she opposed the voice that the left and media pile on started.

Transcript

Conservative values, including freedom, mean we embrace diverse opinions within our wider embrace of the rich tapestry of God’s creation. From free debate of different opinions comes strong policy, fair policy. Yet our opponents on the control side of politics play the person, not the argument. This is second nature to the Left, the control side of politics, with hubris and intolerance covering for ignorance and driving their personal attacks.

In discussing Senator Thorpe’s behaviour, we see that, unlike the control side of politics, conservatives embrace differences of opinion. Could it be that the Left’s own attack on Senator Thorpe is political payback for her opposition to the voice? Remember how an old social media message from Lidia Thorpe, asking for Senator Hanson’s support in fighting the voice, was dredged up?

That dredging up was the warning shot Senator Thorpe did not heed. Now we have the bikie boss scandal. Adam Bandt reacted quickly, with an immediate sacking—as if it was orchestrated. One Nation asked what Adam Bandt knew and when he knew it. A head may roll, yet not the one intended. Listening to confidential briefings on bikie gang criminality while in a secret relationship with a recent boss of a bikie gang deserves strong censure. Cheating on one’s significant other deserves censure in another place, not here. One Nation hopes, in future, to see less petulance and better judgement from Senator Thorpe.

Australia needs the control side of politics, the Left, to demonstrate decency and tolerance towards competing viewpoints. We must work hard with everyday Australians across our nation to stop the Left’s lynch mob mentality—made worse in this case because the lynch mob is Senator Thorpe’s own party.

The Left do not debate. The control side fears debate. Instead they abuse and ridicule, silence and divide, and then seek to destroy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and conservatives celebrate difference of opinion.

/4 Comments/by

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist: The UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People

,

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist. Australian’s should have equality of opportunity no matter what their skin colour is. This is my statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to indicate some concerns I have about this Bill which is both divisive and mostly unnecessary.

Our country is Australia. Our country consists of people from many nations, cultures and religions and from many racial groups providing a rich tapestry of positive contributions to our Australian nation.

What we do not want or need is legislation that picks out a particular cultural group and make laws aimed at that particular cultural group, driving a potentially divisive wedge between aboriginal Australians and other Australians.

It does not matter where a person comes from or what that person’s cultural or racial background is. “I am, you are, we are Australian”, are the words of a well- known theme song.

It’s true. We know that and we do not need legislation that is geared to a “them and us” mentality.

This Bill is intended to affirm into Australian domestic law the contents and intention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

This is a requirement necessary before the UN Declaration provisions become enforceable In Australian law.

Aboriginal Australians, as Australians, already have the same rights as any other Australian right now.

If there are gaps in services available to Indigenous Australians these gaps are due to poverty and remoteness, issues that affect many isolated people across Australia.

It is the failings of successive governments to adequately address health, housing, education and infrastructure that have led to many persons, aboriginal and otherwise, to fall into the poverty gap.

I call on the government to address these issues with priority before considering this Bill which is unnecessary and does nothing more than acknowledging what already is in place for all Australians.

This Bill perpetuates the victimhood of aboriginal people. It places blame on past cultural divides for the current lack of support for aboriginal minorities.

There are many aboriginal people in Australia who have accessed free education, worked hard and prospered as Australians in the broader community. They do not need this Bill.

There are many indigenous Australians who would be offended by the content of this Bill which virtually enshrines a “them and us” mentality.

The most divisive clause in this Bill is clause 7 which throws blame on colonisation for all the ills that prevent their right to develop in accord with their own needs and interests.

All this in the face of facts that include:

 Determined indigenous Native Title claims now cover approximately half of the Australian land mass.

Aboriginal Australians represent approximately 3.5% of Australia’s population

All aboriginal children are entitled to scholarships to continue education through high school and beyond.

Assistance to aboriginal families has now become an enviable but divisive issue within small remote communities where other minorities in similar living conditions are not able to access assistance at the same level.

This is where the true problem lies.

Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist, scientifically false, legally questionable, morally condemnable and socially unjust. Simply wrong.

I do not support this Bill.

/by

Billions spent on the Aboriginal industry for third world healthcare

, ,

Despite billions of dollars in funding and endless virtue signalling from inner-city lefties for Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islanders, the state of healthcare services being provided by Governments on Mornington Island is close to third world.

You should get the same government services regardless of skin colour. If the government can’t take care of the basics, why should we allocate more funding?

Transcript

Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending today. I’d like to ask some questions about Mornington Island, following my questions last year, and then perhaps some general questions. How did the federal government allow the Mornington Islanders’ situation—their health and wellbeing—to slip into one of a Third World country’s?

Ms Rishniw : Mornington Island—I think we provided some answers to questions on notice that we took last time. As you are aware, we work closely with ACCHOs and with the communities. With Mornington Island in particular we worked very closely with the Queensland health and hospital services there, and we are working closely with them to make sure that the services on the island are improved over time.

Senator Roberts : Can you tell me how you are working with the government?

Ms Rishniw : Mr Matthews?

Mr Matthews : There are a number of arrangements. It’s a very broad question when you get to health because you can’t differentiate the health and wellbeing from the broader people, social and environmental aspects around that.

Senator Roberts : I agree.

Mr Matthews : Probably the headline way I would respond to what is happening is through Closing the Gap, which is the framework for the government and states to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around improving outcomes generally. That agreement was signed and struck around the middle of 2020. It’s been in place about 12 months. Its aim is to reset the relationship. It is looking at a broad range of factors to work with. Rather than doing things to people, it’s the concept of doing things with people and bringing them to the table and then looking at how the overall investment across the range of things, from education, employment and housing through to health and health outcomes, come together around that situation. That is probably the nutshell, the main context of the answer to your question about how that’s going to progress into the future from here. Health is a part, but it isn’t the only part in relation to that question.

Also, when you start to get into the provision of hospital services on Mornington Island, they are delivered by the Queensland government, as are a range of education services and those sorts of things, so it’s not a simple Commonwealth Department of Health question; it’s a very broad question. In that context, it’s about understanding the landscape through the lens of where Closing the Gap is resetting that and also some of the other mechanisms—for example, when Senator Dodson was asking about the development of the voice, that is geared towards empowering and encouraging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be more in charge of their future, which will hopefully lead to improved outcomes over time.

Senator Roberts : There were some wonderful points there that I’d like to continue with. First of all I endorse and value your comments about needing an holistic approach. Health is just one part of it. Health is an outcome of the whole way of life, so I understand that. That was a very broad statement, but what are the current initiatives for working with the Queensland government and doing things directly? The Premier of Queensland and the Queensland health minister promised to visit the island last year or early this year. Have they done so?

Mr Matthews : I couldn’t comment on anything about the Queensland government or their ministers and their intentions around that. We don’t have visibility or necessarily monitor or track that, because that’s obviously a matter for the Queensland government.

Senator Roberts : More specifically, how do you work with the Queensland government?

Mr Matthews : From a health point of view—and my colleagues from the National Indigenous Australian Agency may be able to talk more broadly from a broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs perspective—from the Health perspective, there are two mechanisms. We have what are called partnership forums in each jurisdiction, including Queensland. They are regular meetings that usually happen a couple of times a year between Queensland health officials, Commonwealth health officials and officials from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health sector in Queensland. They’re largely geared towards trying to increase the alignment between the Commonwealth, the state and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders, many of whom are delivering services there, to ensure that we are aligning our policy and delivery as far as possible. I’m not talking about Mornington Island specifically, but there are a range of things that will happen through that. Many of the programs we talked about, including things like our syphilis program, will deliver services into Queensland. Over the last two years we have also been looking to increase investment in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, where we’ve increased investment in the Aboriginal community controlled health system by a bit over $160-odd million.

Senator Roberts : Specifically doing what?

Mr Matthews : The investment we’ve lifted into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health service is really around increasing the primary resourcing that goes to primary health care delivered by Aboriginal and community controlled health services in communities. That is different from Mornington Island, which doesn’t have one; it does have some servicing through the Mount Isa service into the community, but a lot of services are delivered by the Queensland government there. What we’re looking to do is increase the resourcing for primary healthcare services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations because they know their clients well and will put in place a stronger framework around comprehensive primary health care. That is something we’ve been doing across the country, not just in Queensland, and will continue to do over—

Senator Roberts : Is that funding for nurses or doctors or—

Mr Matthews : It’s for both really. It funds the resourcing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health clinic and the health clinic will use that for a range of things—it could be used for an Aboriginal health worker, for a doctor, a nurse or other things it may do from a comprehensive healthcare point of view. It is really about the patient coming in and having their needs understood and looking at their broader circumstance and spending an increased amount of time. It’s a little different from a normal visit to a GP. We will bring them in, spend more time with them, look at their other issues and try and provide some of those wraparound supports. That’s how comprehensive primary healthcare works within an Aboriginal community controlled health setting. One of the things we’re doing is increasing our investment in that over time and working with the sector in particular to expand that and look to improve how they service over time as well, which is their intention.

Senator Roberts : How would you characterise not just the quality of the relationship but the actions and behaviours that come from the relationship? Are you a money provider? Are you a resource provider? Are you someone looking over their shoulder in a helpful way that identifies shortfalls in the Queensland government’s approach? Are you advisers to them? How would you describe it?

Mr Matthews : Are you referring to the Queensland government, or to the Aboriginal health services?

Senator Roberts : The Aboriginal health services, with the Queensland government—not just Mornington.

Mr Matthews : I hope the Aboriginal health services wouldn’t characterise us as looking over their shoulder.

Senator Roberts : I mean in the sense that you are working with them.

Mr Matthews : Our intention is very clearly to ensure that we have a partnership approach with Aboriginal health services, which is one of the priority reform areas in the Closing the Gap agreement as well.

Ms Rishniw : Senator, we take the Closing the Gap agreement very seriously. It talks about a partnership with Aboriginal people and Aboriginal services. The money that Mr Matthews outlined goes directly to service delivery by community controlled health organisations. We provide funding—

Senator Roberts : It doesn’t go through the state government?

Ms Rishniw : No, it doesn’t. It goes directly to the sector. It’s deliberately flexible to allow them to address the particular issues around health and providing holistic health services to their community. We work very closely with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and all of the services, to make sure that what we are achieving is a collective set of outcomes that everyone has agreed to around improving health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Senator Roberts : It was wonderful to hear Mr Matthews talking about a holistic approach—not just health but health as an outcome of lifestyle. What about personal accountability? Two or three people in my office and I visited all the Cape York communities. Although the communities are quite different in their needs and their backgrounds, they have some commonalities. Mr Matthews mentioned Closing the Gap. I put it to all the communities that Closing the Gap perpetuates the gap, and they resoundingly said yes. First of all, the underlying intent is to focus on the gap which perpetuates the gap. But putting that aside, there is also what some people call the ‘Aboriginal industry’ and it consist of whites as well as Aboriginals, who are consultants and lawyers et cetera that feed off this and they perpetuate the gap, because without the gap there is no Aboriginal industry. Any comments on that?

Ms Rishniw : I don’t want to speak for Mr Matthews, but our job is to make sure that we can provide comprehensive health care for all Australians. The government invests significantly in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as First Nations peoples because of the disparity in health outcomes to date, and that is what the closing the gap agreement is about. We have worked tirelessly. The community-controlled health sector has been a major part of the infrastructure of delivering health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for over 50 years now and to suggest in any way that that is not a necessary and evidence based investment—

Senator Roberts : I wasn’t suggesting that—

Ms Rishniw : I just wanted to clarify—because asking Mr Matthews for a comment on that. It is evidence based. It is clear. It is a government commitment.

Senator Roberts : You would agree, I would hope, that personal accountability has a lot to do with managing people’s health?

Ms Rishniw : Everyone, I think, across the country wants the best health care and the best for their family and themselves. Personal accountability is one element. We recognise social determinants of health and a range of historical factors as well.

Senator Roberts : So you’re agreeing with me that personal accountability is important?

Ms Rishniw : I think I said it was one of the factors.

Senator Roberts : It is one of the factors so it has a part to play. What we’ve done in this country, under both Labor and Liberal since 1972—people in the communities have told me we have created a sense of victimhood, not beggars but of victimhood, and that’s the opposite of accountability. What I’m trying to do is to get an understanding of the environment in which you work, because if that accountability is not there—these people in the communities are wonderful. There are a diverse range of them, as you know. But they seem to be held back by the ‘Aboriginal industry,’ maybe not deliberately, maybe subconsciously, but that is what’s happening, and lot of it has been caused by state and federal governments, particularly since 1972.

Mr Matthews : We are probably limited to speak from the health perspective. It is where our responsibility is. Just to repeat Ms Rishniw, it would not right be to characterise the community controlled health sector, that is delivered and run by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people, in a negative connotation around an ‘Aboriginal industry.’ We fund them because of your point around getting good services delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We are talking about the provision of health services. There is clear evidence that it is effective in delivering it because it comes from an empowering place of empowering people to do it—

Senator Roberts : That is what I was after.

Mr Matthews : That is why we are growing the sector strongly, investing in it and trying to work very closely with the sector on the way through. I think if you were listening to Dr de Toca’s evidence around our response to COVID we’ve also centred that 100 per cent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and experts for that very reason.

Senator Roberts : What I’m interpreting—it is very welcome if I am interpreting it correctly—is that you’re giving more responsibility to the communities for their health and managing that health?

Mr Matthews : This is always very difficult to verbal, but I would imagine from our colleagues in the community controlled health sector that they would say they are services that are—that their membership is the community and their boards are elected from their community, so they would say they are in and of the community. They would express their view very strongly around that in terms of providing services to their own people.

Senator Roberts : That is welcome news. Is there a plan within your organisation that is part of an overall plan within the government’s—I don’t know what’s Ken Wyatt’s department name title is. The department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or the—

Mr Matthews : The National Indigenous Australians Agency.

Senator Roberts : Is there a coordinated plan with the National Indigenous Australians Agency?

Mr Matthews : This is something that’s easily googled. If you google ‘national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health plan’, you’ll find the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan that was released on 15 December last year, which is now a new 10-year national plan around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, worked up very extensively by, and predominantly led by, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts in the sector around the development of that plan and refreshed to be consistent with Closing the Gap and many of the things we’ve learnt over the last few years. As I said, it was released in the middle of December.

It has at its very heart the concept of how the broader social determinants, linked with health, bring in a dimension around the cultural determinants of health, of how culture plays out for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and impacts on their health and how health needs to respond to that landscape. So that’s been recently refreshed. If you are looking at where the national plan is, that is probably the prime and most important one to have a look at. I’d encourage you to do that. We can provide the link on notice, if you like, just to refresh. If not, that’s okay. That would be well worth having a look at. I also note that it’s endorsed by the majority of the states and territories. It forms a plan now that is developed in and of through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector, agreed by the Commonwealth government and endorsed by the majority of the states and territories.

Senator Roberts : Thank you. That’s welcome news, too, because there are a lot of outstanding people with a lot of potential in those communities who are somehow stymied by an invisible hand. It’s varying from, say, the Lockhart River, where they are really going ahead, to other parts of the country.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just quickly, we are very close to time, and I have one question that I would like to ask the officers before we finish up.

Senator Roberts : Last question, then, Chair. Thank you for that notice. Has there been a drop in the death rate from suicides in the last year? What’s the overall trend in suicide, because it’s quite alarming?

Ms Rishniw : I might go to my colleague online, Mr Roddam, who can talk about speak suicide data and prevention activities.

Mr Roddam : Overall, in 2020, there was a 5.4 per cent reduction in suicide for the whole population. Unfortunately, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, suicide remained the fifth leading cause of death that year, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to die by suicide at more than twice the rate of non-Indigenous people—27.9 per 100,000 population compared with 11.8 per 1,000 population.

Senator Roberts : Can you tell me the overall trend? Relative to the rest of Australia, it’s high. Thank you for that. What’s the overall trend? Is it increasing, decreasing, flat—

Mr Roddam : It did increase slightly in 2020. I’m just trying to get the figures for 2020 compared with 2019. I know that it was a little higher, while the whole-of-population rate fell.

Ms Rishniw : Senator, given the time, we can take that on notice and give you the data around the trends. But it also goes to why we are investing heavily in suicide prevention and mental activities across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have a 24/7 crisis line that’s about to be launched—and we’ll start services from 24 February—and a range of other activities that Senator Dodson well knows we’ve been undertaking around suicide prevention.

Senator Roberts : And just like physical health, mental health is an outcome of cultural and social factors. I think those were Mr Matthews’ words.

Ms Rishniw : There are a range of social determinants that impact on an individual’s health across the board.

Senator Roberts : Thank you all for attending.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by