Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that these bills be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lingiari has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on each of these bills, which the Labor Party has decided to support. I want to go to the explanatory memorandum in the first instance, to give the background of and purpose for each of these bills. The explanatory memorandum to the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006 points out that this supports the implementation of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 and that the CATSI Bill will replace the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. The explanatory memorandum states:

The Bill comprises three parts: consequential amendments, transitional provisions and amendments to the Native Title Act 1993.

I will not go into the consequential amendments at this stage because I think they are pretty basic and they can be found in the explanatory memorandum.

The Corporations Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations) Bill 2006 amends the Corporations Act 2001 as a consequence of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005. The amendments remove duplication arising from provisions in the CATSI Bill which mirror provisions in the Corporations Act. The amendments also remove areas of doubt and potential regulatory gaps that could be created by implementing the CATSI Bill alongside the Corporations Act. The main bill, the substantive bill, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005, replaces the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 to improve governance and capacity in the Indigenous corporate sector. While this bill aligns with modern corporate governance standards and Corporations Law, it maintains a special statute of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that takes account of the special risks and requirements of the Indigenous corporate sector.

The background that is pointed to in the explanatory memorandum, which is worth pointing out, is as follows:

1.3. The ACA Act was envisaged as an incorporation statute to provide a simple and flexible means for incorporating associations of Indigenous people and was reserved for the use of Indigenous people.

1.4. In February 2001 the Registrar commissioned the most recent review of the ACA Act. The final report of the review was presented in December 2002.

1.5. The major finding of the review was that the special incorporation needs of Indigenous people should be met through a statute of incorporation tailored to the specific incorporation needs of Indigenous people. The review recommended a thorough reform of the ACA Act by enactment of a new Act. The review recommended that the new act provide Indigenous people with key facilities of a modern incorporation statute such as the Corporations Act. The review also recommended that the new Act provide special forms of regulatory assistance to support contemporary standards of good corporate governance.

1.6. The review also concluded that the ACA Act was out-of-date and suffered from a large number of technical shortcomings to the point that the ACA Act itself had become a source of disadvantage for Indigenous people.

1.7. The Bill implements the key recommendation by retaining a special incorporation statute to meet the needs of Indigenous people. The Bill introduces a strong but flexible legislative framework that maximises alignment with the Corporations Act where practicable, but provides sufficient flexibility for corporations to accommodate specific cultural practices and tailoring to reflect the particular needs and circumstances of individual groups. In acknowledgement of the fact that most corporations are located in remote or very remote areas, and may provide essential services or hold land, the Bill also offers safeguards through the Registrar’s unique regulatory powers.

A number of the review’s proposals were not implemented, and they are outlined on page 10 of the explanatory memorandum as follows:

3.26. The review recommended providing a transitional mechanism for appropriate corporations to move to the Corporations Act and enter mainstream corporate practice. This will be implemented in a further bill to be brought forward, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Miscellaneous and Transitionals Bill.

3.27. The review recommended that membership of corporations be restricted to Indigenous people. This has partly been implemented by providing that a majority of members (and directors) must be Indigenous. This improves flexibility for corporations to permit non-Indigenous membership which is often important to ensure that services can be provided to non-Indigenous people or adopted children. As some corporations are the only providers of essential services in some communities it also ensures that non-Indigenous members of such communities are not disadvantaged.

3.28. The review recommended that corporate members should not be permitted. The Bill does permit corporate membership which improves the flexibility of corporate design to allow for resource agencies and peak bodies.

3.29. The review also recommended that particular regulatory powers under the current ACA Act should not be retained. For example, the review suggested that instead of the Registrar being able to appoint an administrator, the Registrar should apply to court for appointment of a receiver under the court’s equitable jurisdiction. This recommendation has not been implemented but the appointment of an administrator by the Registrar (called a ‘special administrator’) has been improved to address a number of the reasons why the review considered that Registrar-appointed administrators were problematic. A key improvement is that a decision to appoint a special administrator is a reviewable decision.

I thought it was important to put on the record that background, a bit of history, and the arguments for those proposals that have not been implemented. But I have to say this: I find these measures very complex, very detailed. I am worried that down the track they are going to present some problems to Indigenous people. I hope we are not going from the frying pan into the fire.

I think everyone agrees that the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 needs to be updated. We have had a number of reviews, and the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee also looked at the legislation and came up with a report dated October 2006 which was very worth while. It was interesting to look at some of the evidence before the Senate committee—for instance, that of Mick Dodson. I commend that report to the parliament. As shown in the transcript of the inquiry, Professor Dodson said what I think is the important thing:

... if government requires these onerous reporting exercises then it needs to ensure that people have the capacity to meet those requirements. In the last two years the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has put 600 Aboriginal corporation directors through a three-day training course in Queensland. They have got 100 through a certificate IV program in Queensland. They have done 10 in a three-day workshop at Maningrida. They have done 20 in the APY lands in Central Australia and a further 20 in the Tjurabalan COAG area. That is a bit over 700.

There are 2,800 Indigenous organisations incorporated under the existing legislation. If their boards have on average 10 members, we have 28,000 directors. You do the maths.

Mick also said, in his inimitable style:

It is going to take at this rate about 4,000 years to acquaint them with the requirements under this act and other requirements, including understanding the money. If this is to work and these accountability requirements are to produce real accountability, people need to be given the capacity to properly report under the legislative and regulatory requirements.

He said further on in the transcript:

I would prefer that the extensive reviews that have been conducted, whose major recommendations included simplicity of incorporation and cultural appropriateness, were better taken up. They have not been.

I raised Mick Dodson’s concerns because I have a lot of respect for Mick and I think he made a valid point.

I read somewhere in the material that I have gone through that it was asserted that this legislation could be constituted as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act for Aboriginal people. I find that interesting, because I have a view about special measures, and I am aware of the racial discrimination convention. But, in my view, you have to do a little bit more than to produce this particular legislation to come under a special measure. Even with some concessions for Indigenous people because of their cultural backgrounds or whatever, I do not know that that necessarily constitutes a special measure. I do not want to debate it, but I think the principle is right.

We have to recognise that we are dealing with Indigenous people here, and I applaud the concept of special measures for their advancement and that they are specifically recognised under the Racial Discrimination Act and under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. We should not apologise for that. We should be introducing special measures to assist Aboriginal people to reach equality with the rest of the community, and that requires differential treatment. True equality requires differential treatment. If we are all sitting at the table and we all have different skills and we want to get ourselves to a certain level of equality, it might require intervention of a different kind for the different individuals around the table—for example, to bring their level of mathematics up to a certain level.

So I think what Mick Dodson said is right: we should not apologise for having simple, streamlined provisions in this area for Aboriginal people. We can argue for doing that and for doing it in a proper way. It is one thing to say you have a special measure; it is another thing to actually have a special measure. We have to be able to demonstrate that we are taking into account cultural sensitivities. The provision and facilitation of training—which, as Mick has highlighted, has happened already in Queensland—is something that, you could argue, like a social justice package, could constitute a special measure. That is the area that the government has to concentrate on, because this is red tape.

I have an economics degree and a legal degree and, even with my background, frankly I would hate to be a director running one of these organisations and having to comply with the requirements. I would require intensive massaging. That is where I think you could argue the special measure could come from in relation to backing up the act with money and with assistance to Aboriginal communities and not apologise for it. Too often part of the problem that I have seen with some of the act, including when I was Aboriginal affairs spokesman from 1996 to 2000, is that the registrar, in a number of instances, might have acted with haste.

As I said earlier, I read somewhere that one of the suggestions that might make it a special measure is the ability of the registrar to come in quickly to protect the assets and not have to go through a whole range of things. But I notice that at the moment that is subject to review, as it should be. It is important, in terms of the reviews that have been done, that I commend the government for bringing in amendments and for taking into account aspects of the reviews. I have put on record those parts of the reviews’ recommendations that were not picked up. I do not think government has to pick up everything that a review says if there is a reasonable basis for it acting in a particular way.

Repealing the old act and bringing in the new act has been too long coming, and it will require a continuing monitoring of the situation of Aboriginal people. There are going to be some problems. What I am worried about are the processes. I appreciate the review mechanism that is there. There needs to be an ability to challenge. I notice that the Central Land Council, for instance, in their submission were not all that keen on the legislation. It has been amended since the Central Land Council looked at it. The Central Land Council, in their summary at page 2 of their submission—and I cannot say that I have crosschecked all of this with some of the amendments that have come through; I make that concession—said:

2.

The ‘special incorporation needs of Indigenous people’ are not being met by the main provisions of the Bill.

3.

The draftsperson has created a ‘default setting’ of intense regulation.

4.

The needs of the majority of Aboriginal corporations, at least in Central Australia, are not met by the main provisions of the Bill but rather by the provisions providing for exemption from obligations created by the Bill.

5.

The proscriptive nature of the Bill may go so far as to deter Aboriginal groups from using the statute thereby defeating completely the purpose of having an Indigenous incorporation statute.

6.

There are hundreds of Aboriginal corporations operating in Central Australia. struggling to comply with the requirements of the current Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act.

…            …            …

7.

The Central Land Council believes that the complex issues associated with prescribed bodies corporate should be the subject of a separate and specific review.

8.

The Central Land Council supports the view that the complex nature of prescribed bodies corporate justifies a separate Division in the Bill rather than as proposed, a situation where they are in no way distinguished from other bodies incorporated under the legislation.

I also note that there is some suggestion that because of time frames in some areas there has not been the consultation with Aboriginal people that one would have hoped for. Whether that is right or wrong, I would suggest that, in a continuing monitoring situation, consultation is of the essence. At the end of the day, what we are about is Aboriginal people. My approach in representing Aboriginal people was to listen to them and to represent them. It was not to take the missionary approach and go in and tell them what is good for them. When groups like the Central Land Council raise concerns, we should listen. The Central Land Council is one of the best Aboriginal organisations in the country. They are the most professional that I have had to deal with—although I did not necessarily agree with everything that they said. It seems to me that there is a diversity issue. I would put the Central Land Council in a different category to some other organisations.

That is the other important thing that this legislation will hopefully allow to be picked up. You need some flexibility and discretion in relation to how you deal with some of these organisations. You have to have standards that are appropriate and, on balance, most people agree that this is an improvement. That is the way that it should be. What I have been concerned about in recent history with regard to this government is that it is not really about improvements; it is about changing things just because of philosophical disagreements on a number of issues. I will be speaking shortly on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 [2006]. There are amendments to that, but they do not go to substantive issues.

This is important legislation. I do not think Aboriginal people can say that they do not want this legislation. They have to have the legislation, but it has to work for them. The fact that there have been a number of amendments made since the initial bill saw the light of day—and the minister released a number of amendments recently that have been the subject of discussion—is a good thing, because it is about improving the lot of Aboriginal people, not about taking a missionary approach to them. I am happy to support these bills.

Danna Vale (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 replaces the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. It will improve governance and capacity in the Indigenous corporate sector, and it is presented in this House together with two related bills covering consequential, transitional and other measures relating to Indigenous affairs. While the bills align with modern corporate governance standards and Corporations Law, they maintain a special statute of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that takes into account the special risks and requirements of the Indigenous corporate sector.

Since its enactment, the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 has become the most significant vehicle for the incorporation of a broad range of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander associations. There are currently close to 3,000 associations incorporated under part IV of the act. These corporations have also come to play a central role in the delivery of government services at Commonwealth, state and territory levels. The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act has been the source of much comment and criticism, particularly over the last 10 years.

Since the last amendment of the act in 1992, there have been several significant reviews of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. Two bills to amend the act were proposed in 1994 and 1995, and were discussed in parliament, but they lapsed and were not reintroduced. The various reviews of the act have raised important issues of law reform, including many not addressed by the 1994 and 1995 bills. In February 2001, the registrar commissioned the most recent review of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. The final report of the review was presented in December 2002. The major finding of the review was that the special incorporation needs of Indigenous people should be met through a statute of incorporation tailored to the specific incorporation needs of Indigenous people.

The review recommended a thorough reform of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act by enactment of a new act. The review recommended that the new act provide Indigenous people with key facilities of a modern incorporation statute such as the Corporations Act. The review also recommended that the new act provide special forms of regulatory assistance to support contemporary standards of good corporate governance. The review found that the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act was out of date and suffered from a large number of technical shortcomings to the point that the act itself had become a source of disadvantage for Indigenous people. This is most likely because in the period since the enactment of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act in 1976 there have been significant changes in the circumstances of Indigenous people in Australia and in the uses which Indigenous people make of corporations.

Government policy in the area of Indigenous affairs has also changed dramatically. Government funding and service provision patterns have changed, often creating the need for more corporations tailored to the needs of Indigenous people. In the past decade, greater emphasis has been placed upon the need for greater accountability of Indigenous corporations for public moneys. In the period since 1976 there have also been substantial changes in the legal environment for corporate regulation and in the recognition and enforcement of Indigenous legal rights.

The state companies codes upon which the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act was based have been amended numerous times. The contemporary Corporations Act now reflects a regulatory philosophy which better facilitates the objectives of persons using corporations as a vehicle for commercial enterprise.

Looking at the bill, it implements the key recommendation of the review by retaining a special incorporation statute to meet the needs of Indigenous people. The bill introduces a strong but flexible legislative framework that maximises alignment with the Corporations Act where practicable but provides sufficient flexibility for corporations to accommodate specific cultural practices and reflect the particular needs and circumstances of individual groups. In acknowledgement of the fact that most corporations are located in remote, and indeed very remote, areas and may provide essential services or hold land, the bill also offers safeguards through the registrar’s unique regulatory powers.

This is one of many reforms that are required if we are to make significant inroads into reducing Indigenous disadvantage. The abolition of ATSIC was only the beginning. The changes being brought to the Indigenous affairs landscape are the most significant in decades. This government has established a national Indigenous council as the peak advisory body to the government on Indigenous affairs, with membership including experts in areas such as law, education, health, sport and business.

The government has established 30 Indigenous coordination centres as multi-agency units, including staff from most of the key agencies now responsible for Indigenous programs. This gives Indigenous communities a one-stop shop for dealing with the Australian government and, in some cases, state and local governments. The government has established the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs supported by a secretaries group to drive and oversee the reforms in Indigenous affairs and to set national priorities.

The government has worked more closely with state and territory governments to reduce overlap and duplication and to clarify responsibilities. Bilateral agreements are also being negotiated with each state and territory and have been finalised with the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. The government has moved to improve data and accountability. The government commissioned the Productivity Commission report into Indigenous disadvantage and over the longer term will measure progress. The Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs produces an annual report on progress.

We have ensured a more strategic approach. There is now one coordinated single Indigenous budget submission rather than individual departments putting forward separate proposals in an uncoordinated way. The government has reformed the Community Development Employment Program to ensure that more people move into real and permanent jobs. In addition, the most important reforms to the Northern Territory Aboriginal land rights legislation will be introduced this year. The government is reforming the native title system to make it even more workable. Aboriginal legal services have been put out to competitive tender and more outcome effective services are now operating in most states. This is only the beginning of a reform process that will deliver dramatically improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting Indigenous organisations through my work on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, which is chaired by Mr Barry Wakelin, the member for Grey. Last July I was fortunate enough to participate in a committee visit to the Northern Territory and to the north of Western Australia for public committee hearings to learn first hand of many success stories enjoyed by several Indigenous corporations and other organisations in that region which employ and train Indigenous young people.

The committee visited Maningrida, the Wunan Foundation in Kununurra, the Argyle Mine, Home Valley station and tourist facility, Voyages El Questro Wilderness Park resort and went on to Broome to visit the Roebuck Plains Station and the Nirrumbuk Aboriginal Corporation. We met and heard evidence from Indigenous and non-Indigenous employers and corporation managers who trained, employed or assisted Indigenous people to find employment. All these organisations were very well managed and had achieved measurable success in training young Indigenous people.

Initially we flew into the remote community of Maningrida and were met by Mr Ian Munro, the CEO of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, which was established in l974 and incorporated in 1979. Their annual report for 2004-05 records that, over the past 31 years, this vibrant corporation has been responsible for a growing portfolio of services and support for over 800 members living on 32 outstations in an area of approximately 10,000 square kilometres.

This corporation also operates a Community Development Employment Program, commonly referred to as a CDEP, which employs around 590 participants and a salaried staff of 55. The policies of this corporation are decided by the consensus of an elected body of outstation representatives at meetings that are open to all residents. These policies are then carried out by the CEO and the management team in conjunction with senior staff in each program area.

While the initial focus of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation was the support of outstation people living in the bush, its portfolio of services has expanded to provide housing, training, human services, a road party project, a building program, a mechanical workshop, a fuel supply, the tucker run and, importantly, the provision of the necessary administration to keep it all happening. Always on the watch for new business opportunities, in the last financial year the corporation established a crabbing operation, a hairdresser in the Women’s Centre, the Good Food Kitchen in the Maningrida community and a retail outlet for the Maningrida Arts and Culture Centre in the main tourist precinct in Darwin.

Training is also an important focus of this corporation. In only its third year of operation, the corporation training facility coordinates and delivers training to CDEP participants and salaried staff. Under contract with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, one highlight of this program was the successful completion of two STEP projects, the business and sustainable harvests projects, which showed outstanding results. A total of 26 CDEP participants gained qualifications in Certificate II Business, certificates I and II Horticulture, and certificates I and II Resource Management.

The committee learnt that the success of the training programs was a source of pride for the corporation. Twenty of the participants had been retained in employment after the completion of their training. All are on a CDEP-plus basis, working a minimum of six hours per day on a regular basis and thus making a significant contribution to local productivity. Some have been promoted to supervisor and some work crews are now able, through their additional skills, to earn the income required to provide more than half their wages. The committee learnt that one of the many CDEP courses was the chainsaw and advanced tree felling course. The skills gained from this course proved a vital resource for the people of the Maningrida community after the ravages of Cyclone Monica earlier this year. Such skills allowed this very remote community to be totally self-reliant and self-sufficient in clearing up after the cyclone, and this clearly illustrates just how important and effective a well managed CDEP training program can be for these remote communities.

The human services program run by the corporation is principally funded by community aged care packages and the Home and Community Care Program. It provides meals on wheels for over 30 clients in Maningrida, a wide range of aged care services, the disability buddy program and a substance misuse program. Under the road party service, the corporation successfully tendered for a contract to undertake major roadworks on the Darwin road last year and contributed significant additional funding to realign the road to eliminate several danger areas.

The corporation’s building program employs a number of contract tradesmen to work with Aboriginal people to construct buildings for the corporation. Buildings constructed in the last financial year included two mud-brick duplexes for staff, a new complex for the Djelk rangers, the road party shed, the Good Food Kitchen, CDEP toilets, the pilot’s flat and a new creche. Extensions were carried out to house the wildlife centre, and there were numerous renovations to existing buildings, including the Women’s Centre. It was pointed out to the committee that, while commercial development and the construction of staff housing is largely unsupported by government and thus imposes significant ongoing demands on the resources of the corporation, its future as an incubator of commerce and regional development heavily relies on such infrastructure, and government support in these areas is vital for sustainable commercial success in the future.

The very successful Tucker Run is an innovation by the corporation which provides a fortnightly mobile service to outstation residents, supplying food and a variety of other goods. Two Toyota Landcruiser utes operate the Tucker Run in the dry. During the wet season, a fortnightly air service operates to those outstations unreachable by road. November 2004 marked the opening of the Bawinanga Good Food Kitchen, which heralded a new focus on healthy food options in Maningrida. With high levels of dietary related illness in the community, healthy hot and cold meals and snacks and drinks need to be readily available. After the completion of the new building for the Good Food Kitchen, staff completed training in safe food handling techniques, and more training is planned for the future.

Other community development projects promoted by the corporation include the Maningrida municipal, the Maningrida nursery, the CDEP Women’s Centre, the Djelk Sea Rangers, the Djelk Women Rangers, the wildlife centre, the crab harvesting program, tourism and the internationally renowned Maningrida Arts and Culture Centre. This highly successful culture centre is professionally managed by French curator Apolline Kohen, who has assisted Maningrida artists to establish an enviable reputation in art circles both in Australia and overseas. Maningrida artists were well represented in the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award, in which they won two of the five art categories. Famous local artist John Bulunbulun received further recognition in December 2004 when he won the prestigious Red Ochre Art Award.

In a major exhibition at the New South Wales Art Gallery between September and December 2004, Maningrida art was such an outstanding success that, as a direct result of this one exhibition, the enhanced profile of its artists both nationally and internationally has ensured a sustained interest from the art collectors and buyers of the world. As a fine measure of international recognition, renowned Maningrida artist John Marwurndjul was one of only eight Indigenous Australian artists especially selected for a major public art commission for the new Musee du Quai Branly in Paris this year. Further, a major retrospective of John’s work appeared in the Musee Jean Tinguely in Basel in Switzerland only last month. Such results and recognition of the fine work of the Maningrida artists are further indications of the good management of this corporation.

The Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation at Maningrida is an excellent example of a well-organised and well-managed Indigenous corporation that provides essential services to its people and initiates activities that create economic development, training and job creation. Its work is invaluable to the people of the Maningrida community. Reading through its recent annual report, one sees that this corporation deals with income in the tens of millions of dollars, almost half of which is in the form of government grants. In his message, the chairman states that ‘the success of these projects will rely on our commitment, vision and effort, supported by increased levels of government support.’

There are many other Indigenous corporations across Australia like the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation that also provide valuable and essential services to their communities, but there are also many that are, regrettably, not as well managed. Bawinanga is fully accountable to its members and the government and it produces an annual report which, among others things, includes a statement of financial performance. To encourage and to provide guidance as to good practice and procedure in the better management of corporations, these bills will assist in accountability as we work together to end Indigenous disadvantage. I commend these associated bills to the House.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst this is a cognate debate, I want to talk in particular about the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005. The honourable member for Hughes—and I do welcome her contribution—spoke about Maningrida and Maningrida art. Earlier this year, when we were looking at the problems that were being created by 13,000 illegal Indonesian fishing boats entering our territorial waters, I visited that community, and I can affirm the excellence of the art that is produced at Maningrida. I certainly thank the community for the warm hospitality that was shown to me and my colleagues, including the Labor senator for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Lingiari, who was a key person in arranging the details of the visit.

I was very interested also that the member for Hughes mentioned the sea ranger program. I have had extensive questions about that program put on the Notice Paper, because there is a significant difference between the way Customs treats sea rangers and the way the Defence Force utilises our Indigenous community as part of the ADF. I know your great interest in defence, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, and you would be pleased to know—I am sure you already know—that the Indigenous community in the north make an invaluable contribution to our defence forces through the reconnaissance units that they largely man. But Defence treats them completely differently in the north of Australia. They are actually members of the Defence Reserves and they are remunerated like any other reservists. I think that that is proper. The job that they do is valued. We could not do it without them and their remuneration is, I think, significant and recognises the value of their contribution.

The sea ranger project, as the honourable member for Hughes points out—and I agree with her—is doing a very worthwhile thing in the north of Australia and particularly in the Northern Territory, with its extensive coastline. I will not say that the people participating in the project receive nothing from Customs; I have had it recorded in an answer to a question that they do receive Customs mugs and key rings as a way of thanking them for their valuable work. If you talk to sea rangers, you find they actually want to contribute more. They would welcome proper training by Customs. They are more than happy not only to detect but to interdict these 13,000 illegal boats that invade our sea space and our coastline every year. When I was at Maningrida, they not only had a very fast boat that they used and would like to use more; they also had an aeroplane. But they are not authorised to use that plane. If they were allowed to use it, they would not look for great recompense—that is, being able to depreciate the aeroplane et cetera—but actually being able to have the fuel supplied would be worthwhile.

I admire—as the Department of Defence and the ADF do—the Indigenous component of our reserve force in our north. The work they do is highly esteemed and valued and they are appropriately and not differentially treated within the reserves. We could not do without them. Like the honourable member for Hughes, I recognise the valuable work that the sea rangers are currently doing. I say to Customs: take a fresh look at it. I apologise to the member for Hughes and to the House, but I actually put a question on the Notice Paper about whether or not Customs gives or proposes to give those sea rangers cigarettes, tea, flour and sugar. I got the response, of course, that they do not, but no-one in the department, much less the minister, understood the irony in the question.

Maningrida is a great place and the sea rangers are great people, and I felt very privileged to be there. But why am I interested in the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005? The bill makes quite a number of changes. It is intended to introduce modern governance standards while maintaining a special statute of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006 facilitates the transition from the old to the new regime and the Corporations Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations) Bill 2006 addresses cross-jurisdictional issues. The legislation implements a key recommendation by retaining a special incorporation statute to meet the needs of Indigenous people. It introduces a legislative framework that maximises alignment with the Corporations Act where practical but provides the flexibility to incorporate specific cultural practices to reflect the needs of individual groups. As most of the corporations—but not all, I might say—are located in rural areas, the registrar provides safeguards via unique regulatory powers.

There was, in my view, an inconsistency in the current arrangements in the ability to prosecute the general managers and chief executive officers of Aboriginal organisations. There was a bit of a void. There was an attempt to fix it by way of regulation, but clearly the changes in this legislation make it abundantly clear that a general manager or chief executive cannot hide behind the fiduciary responsibilities that board members of these associations have.

This is particularly painful for me because I have already previously raised the issue in the context of an Aboriginal childcare centre. It is not the only federally funded organisation that has gone belly up. In fact, I was very pleased to see a ‘white run’, if you like, organisation that was defrauding the Commonwealth closed down very sharply and swiftly when I raised the matter in this House. Murawina has a special place in my heart. It was originally founded in Janet Street. That was the street that I moved to in Mount Druitt when I was 17. As the local federal member, in the mid-eighties I was successful in having the childcare centre transferred to Tooloon Street, a bit further but not much more than a block away from the CBD of Mount Druitt.

The facilities for Aboriginal kids attending that childcare centre were really great. A friend of mine, an elder now, Danny Eastwood, a renowned Aboriginal artist from my community, was instrumental in the establishment and good functioning and governance of that childcare centre. For many years, it was a very successful organisation. It was something that I was very proud of. In fact, I recall that some of the neighbours of the childcare centre, before it was operational, came to see me and complained bitterly about the loss of value of their homes and the wild orgies and corroborees that might be held et cetera. Well, none of their fears transpired. The organisation for many years went from strength to strength, as it should have. It was a well-run childcare centre meeting the special needs of our Indigenous kids.

In recent times, that has not been the case. We have not only had a board of management that has run this childcare centre into the ground but we have also had a chief executive officer who, under the previous regime, may have felt that she was immune from any charges and that it would be only the board members that would be charged. Some $900,000 has gone missing. It is in default by $900,000—that really takes some special effort. At Christmas time last year—and I thank the government for it—the government provided an extra payment whilst the centre was still operating to meet the salaries or wages of the staff working at the centre. The government could have made out very strong arguments about why they should not have done it, but they did, and I am grateful. I would like to report to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, that all that money went to those that it was intended to go to. That extra payment, which was effectively an ex gratia payment to the centre, did not go to the people who were working in that centre. The centre has now closed.

I have had meetings with the Indigenous community. I am pleased to say that the federal Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs representatives were the only representatives who were prepared to come to that meeting. I commend them for it. The state Department of Community Services and the state Department of Fair Trading did not, but the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs did. The one thing those parents of Aboriginal children who used to go to Murawina want—as indeed do some of the workers that turned up to these public meetings—is for the guilty parties to be prosecuted.

We are currently at a bit of an impasse. I am disappointed that I do not have the same level of interaction with the federal department that I enjoyed when Kay Patterson was the minister. I regret that. There has been an audit completed of the childcare centre. And there is an attempt, because the land was originally owned by ASIC, that the covenant on the land in the name of the Commonwealth should be removed and the auditor allowed to sell the childcare centre and land. I strongly support the Commonwealth and the minister in ensuring that that does not happen—the covenant should stay in place. I regret to say that it is a matter for the state Department of Fair Trading as to whether or not the auditor can complete a forensic audit. We need a forensic audit so that the auditor can then present to state or federal police the details of how one childcare centre can go into deficit to the tune of $900,000. At this stage, I am unable to say to the House whether or not such an audit will be undertaken, and I think that that is wrong.

This legislation is really fixing up the fact that, if a forensic audit is done and it is found that the board and the chief executive officer—or general manager, or whatever the title is—has done the wrong thing, then we can bring them to justice, which is what my Indigenous community wants. Without that forensic audit, it will be problematic. I take the view that these things need to be aired publicly. I do not think we should try to sweep them under the carpet. In fact, again, this is what the community wants. They are so savage about and so critical of how this organisation has been deliberately run down.

For too long, the community in my electorate has been without any dedicated Aboriginal childcare. I repeat that, Mr Deputy Speaker: outside of the Northern Territory, I have the largest urban Aboriginal community in Australia, and we are currently without childcare.

I want to make a couple of pleas. I say to the minister, Mal Brough: my intention has always been—and I think I have proved my credentials on this—that we should work together. We need to work together and we need to work together with the states as well—and local government, for that matter—and get this fixed up as quickly as possible and get an Aboriginal childcare centre operating as quickly as possible out of the Murawina premises. It would initially, hopefully, be auspiced by the local council but in the future turned over to the community, but with the community being backed up by proper governance or instruction on proper governance by any board that is established. It would also involve fully informing the parents of those children what their rights are.

I have to say that, in this sorry saga, at one time dodgy bills were sent out to every parent who had sent a child to Murawina children’s centre. It was a way of trying to demonstrate in the Supreme Court of New South Wales that the centre had access to money and should therefore be allowed to continue operating. I am pleased to say that, with the assistance of advice from legal aid, we were able to counter that. For everyone who approached us with a dodgy bill, we were able to counter it, and finally we had them withdrawn.

I do, as quickly as possible, want to brag about a new Murawina centre that is providing services for the Aboriginal kids in my electorate, doing a fantastic job and getting them well on their way on the path of learning. I certainly support this bill. I certainly support the fact that there is no immunity now for any general manager or chief executive of an Aboriginal body or corporation that does the wrong thing under the law. They should understand that, like any other citizen in this country, they will be subject to the law and proper and due process.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the Australian parliament today on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 as the representative of the electorate of Ryan, which I have the great pleasure and the great honour of representing here. I want to say at the outset that I do know that many of my constituents would have been horrified to see on the ABC’s Lateline program the shocking allegations of abuse of children in the remote Mutijulu community in the Northern Territory. In fact, some of my constituents did contact me to express their very deep shock and their hope that the government would continue very strongly to pursue policies and initiatives that would eradicate such violence and abuse, particularly of women and children.

I should say that several months ago I had the opportunity of going to a dinner function where the federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, spoke, and some of his comments came as a great shock to me. One in particular that I recollect—it stayed in my mind because it was so shocking—was that he had come across young women in their 20s who were already grandmothers, something that I found absolutely unbelievable. Clearly, in certain parts of Australia, in some remote areas of the country, there are such shocking tales.

Those allegations do highlight very strongly the need for reconciliation in this country and the need for the government and Australians in general to reach out to our Indigenous community. It is of course very much a priority of the Australian government. Equally, it is a priority that Indigenous Australians view themselves as first-class citizens of this country, as no lesser Australians than anyone else who has the privilege, I think, to be an Australian.

Recently Pope Benedict, via a written statement, encouraged all Australians to ‘address this issue with compassion and determination’. I would like to refer the parliament to his broader comments, because he did touch on the importance of Indigenous Australians not allowing themselves to fall into the temptation of things like alcohol and drugs. I would like to read his comments to the parliament, because I think they are very pertinent and very inspiring:

Indeed, every human community needs and seeks strong, inspiring leaders to guide others into the way of hope. Much rests therefore … upon the example of the elders of communities. I encourage them to exercise authority wisely through faithfulness to their traditions—songs, stories, paintings, dances …

Pope Benedict went on to say:

Don’t allow your dreaming to be undermined by the shallow call of those who might lure you into the misuse of alcohol and drugs, as promises of happiness … Such promises are false, and lead only to a circle of misery and entrapment.

I should say that the occasion for his statement was the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s visit to this country, and it was through the Bishop of Darwin, the Most Reverend Edmund Collins. His comments go on:

Much has been achieved along the path of racial reconciliation, yet there was still much to be accomplished. No-one can exempt themselves from this process. While no culture can use past hurt as an excuse to avoid facing the difficulties and meeting the contemporary social needs of its own people, it is also the case that only through the readiness to accept historical truth can a sound understanding of contemporary reality be reached and the vision of a harmonious future espoused.

I therefore again encourage all Australians to address with compassion and determination the deep underlying causes of the plight which still afflicts so many Aboriginal citizens ... A commitment to truth opens the way to lasting reconciliation through the healing process of asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness—two indispensable elements for peace.

I certainly endorse those remarks of Pope Benedict. I also want to say very clearly that reconciliation is very much more than just eloquence or fine rhetoric. I do want to give to the parliament and my constituents a flavour of what the Howard government’s reconciliation definition is. I think that it is very important that Australians are fully aware that this government is very genuinely committed to the reconciliation process, but it has to be reconciliation with substance. We all know that at its heart is the phrase ‘practical reconciliation’ where we do make a meaningful impact upon the lives of Indigenous Australians, and where we take many of those small steps in the right direction. I quote the Prime Minister in his speech of July to the Reconciliation Australia dinner in Melbourne when he said:

I think all of us are aware that reconciliation is not going to come as a result of eloquent rhetoric or high-level communiqués. It will come through indigenous and other Australians taking millions of small steps in the right direction. I think it’s important if we’re realistic to understand that.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

It is the greatest country in the world. But in the area of indigenous opportunity and advantage we still do have a very long way to go if we’re to live up to the highest ideals and aspirations of that deeply held belief that we have. And today I want to particularly focus on the issue of education, and because I believe it lies at the heart of bridging that gulf between indigenous Australians and the rest of the community.

This bill goes a very long way to showing the country that reconciliation must have some teeth to it. It must have some substance and meaning to it. This bill is a very clear example of the Howard government’s practical reconciliation approach. The Howard government understands that. Real progress in the area of Indigenous welfare must be built on the firm foundation of law and order. Minister Brough showed his commitment to this principle earlier in his responses to the claims of sexual abuse in the Mutijula community, and I think this bill again reflects that very genuine commitment on behalf of the government.

The 2006-07 budget provides some $28.1 million to help Indigenous corporations improve their governance capacity and their ability to deliver effective services, especially to remote communities. This bill represents a pivotal part of that commitment. It will provide a firm legal base on which further practical advances in Indigenous welfare can be made. The bill will replace the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 to ensure that Aboriginal corporations are founded on the basic principles of good governance while also providing the flexibility to incorporate cultural distinctions. There are currently some 2,800 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations registered under the ACA Act. Sixty per cent of these corporations are located in remote or very remote areas. These corporations range in their size and focus from small to very large organisations controlling millions of dollars in assets. Many own property and infrastructure which service remote communities where the conventional provision of services provided by government might be very difficult to render.

In some remote and very remote areas these corporations often provide communities with fundamental basic services such as electricity and, because of the important role they play, it is critical that these corporations operate with transparency and accountability for they do have a lot of financial resources within their ambit. It is critical for the health of Indigenous communities that these corporations are functioning properly and are free from corruption and manipulation. Currently, Indigenous groups or associations can incorporate under the 30-year-old ACA Act. Since the act’s inception there has been an exponential expansion of Aboriginal corporations in both size and number. The current bill will therefore replace the ACA Act which, after 30 years, is in poor form. It has been proved unable to adapt to changes in native title legislation and in corporate and accountability requirements as they have evolved in recent years.

The current bill will institute the majority of changes recommended by the 2001 review that was commissioned by the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. This bill represents the government’s continued commitment to a special incorporation statute to meet the needs of Indigenous people. Again, I think that the most important feature of this bill is that its foundation stone is the Corporations Act 2001.For the most part the bill replicates the corporate governance standards expected of all directors and officers of an incorporated entity. It ensures company officers are responsible and accountable to their members, with provisions for directors and managers to be disqualified and placed on a roll of disqualified directors if that is appropriate. Of course the government recognises the special needs of Aboriginal corporations especially due to their remoteness, capacity and culture. So there is flexibility in the bill to accommodate that and to tailor the organisations to the government structures that provide the best outcomes according to the specific circumstances and the specific communities that they serve.

I think it is fair to say that in this country one of the greatest challenges for government is to address and redress as far as humanly possible the great challenges we have in Indigenous affairs. One of the greatest challenges for a government is to get right its policies in relation to Indigenous affairs. Simply throwing money at the problem is not the answer; we have to come up with real and meaningful ideas and solutions to the great intellectual and political challenge that confronts us in terms of the wider community’s relationship with Indigenous Australians. I think the Howard government can be proud of its part in its 10 years of office in trying to address Indigenous issues. Clearly, as the Prime Minister noted, it is a work in progress. It is a very difficult issue, but we will continue to address it as far as we can.

One of the key voices in Australia in Indigenous issues is, of course, Noel Pearson from my home state of Queensland. I think that his remarks in recent times have become a symbol of what can and should be done. I want to read in the parliament some of his words because I think they are very pertinent to all of us here. I think they are especially pertinent to those in the Labor Party who might have different views on how to approach and redress the issue of welfare as it pertains to the Indigenous community. I want to refer to Noel Pearson’s comments on 5 June 2005 on the ABC’s Insiders program where he said:

... I have been obviously a bid advocate of the need for really fundamental welfare reform, because I think that it is a crucial problem underpinning our disadvantaged. Until we get on top of passive welfare we will never be able to get on top of our life expectancy deficit problem. But, at the same time, I think it has got to be recognised that it’s not just Indigenous people who are suffering from the problems of passive welfare. There are non-Indigenous communities in this country who suffer from real disadvantage.

The real disadvantage that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians suffer in the lowest classes in this country is the passing on of dependency between generations and all of the social problems that rise from inter-generational dependency and I see this, I see emerging signs in the mainstream community that white Australians are suffering as much from the problems of welfare dependency as Indigenous communities are.

Indigenous communities are really a wake up call. Thirty years later the Indigenous communities of Australia represent a wake up call for mainstream community - that if you put people and families in a situation of inter-generational dependency, then really tragic social problems will arise.

I say ‘Hear, hear!’ to that, and it lies at the heart of the Howard government’s policy in terms of addressing the welfare issue . It is critical that we have a safety net for Australians in genuine need, but we are not in the business of simply providing welfare to Australians for the sake of doing so. Noel Pearson’s words are probably harsh for those opposite to accept but, as the Minister for Human Services said today, some $11,000 of taxpayers’ money is spent on the dole per minute in this country.

I think that taxpayers in this country have the right to expect Australians who have the capacity to work to work, and they feel very strongly about the government’s policies in that respect. Equally, they are very generous, as taxpayers and as Australians. We also have an obligation to look after our fellow Australians who are in genuine need. Of course, amongst those in genuine need are Indigenous Australians.

I want to end my remarks by giving the Australian community, in particular those who live in my electorate, some information on the government’s financial support for Indigenous Australians, because it is taxpayers’ money. It is government policy to support Indigenous Australians through various vehicles and mechanisms and it is important that my Ryan constituents are aware of where Australian government funds are in terms of their fellow Indigenous Australians.

Real spending on Indigenous specific programs has increased by almost 50 per cent in the last decade from the level it was at when the Howard government was elected in 1996. The 2006-07 budget provides the biggest investment in Indigenous affairs in the history of this country—some $3.3 billion. This includes almost $500 million in additional spending to support 24 new Indigenous projects which span across six portfolios. For instance, the Howard government has allocated $23 million to support communities through programs to develop emerging leaders; $107.5 million to support and develop Indigenous home ownership on Indigenous land; $55.2 million to expand the rollout of non-sniffable fuels; and $2 million to help Scouts Australia to develop a culturally specific leadership program for Indigenous youth.

These youth programs are particularly important when you consider that 40 per cent of the Indigenous population in Australia is aged under 15—double that of the non-Indigenous population, which is approximately 20 per cent. In addition to these measures, the government has allocated a further $130 million to the fight against family violence and child abuse, which simply cannot be tolerated in this country.

The Howard government, in contrast to Labor, has a very proud record in Indigenous affairs, focusing its attention and resources on real progress, not just rhetoric. I hope very much that those opposite will shift their views, their policies and their thinking from a rights-only and a self-determination-only agenda to one which is very much in tune with what will make an impact in the Australian Indigenous community. They would go a long way if they subscribed to Noel Pearson’s views about what can be done in this country to address the great challenges of the Australian Indigenous community.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity in the parliament to acknowledge the Australian Indigenous Leadership Council. I was very pleasantly surprised to receive an invitation from their board to attend a graduation dinner in honour of the students who have completed the Attorney-General’s Indigenous leadership program in late October. This is an example of an organisation that is trying to address the future of Indigenous Australians’ skills to give them the confidence, knowledge and tools to be part of the broader Australian community and the capacity to make a difference, not only in their own communities but in mainstream Australia. (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006 and cognate billsreplace the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act of 1976. They align with modern corporate governance standards and Corporations Law, but, at the same time, maintain a special statute of incorporation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There are about 2,800 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations registered under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. Many deliver essential services—for example, they deliver medical care and infrastructure to remote communities—or they might hold land for Indigenous groups. Most native title corporations are registered under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act, as are most remote Indigenous art centres. So it is clear that there are many corporations governing the activities of Indigenous communities in our country.

The bills introduce a legislative framework that achieves alignment with the Corporations Act wherever practicable, but, at the same time, provide sufficient flexibility for corporations to accommodate specific cultural practices and they are tailored to reflect the particular needs and circumstances of individual groups. So it is pragmatic legislation that improves corporate governance, as is very desirable in this and other areas, but, at the same time, it retains flexibility so that it is adaptable to the circumstances of particular communities in particular locations and with particular characteristics. So there is a lot to commend in principle about this legislation.

The legislation went to a Senate inquiry, but, as is so often the case, the Senate inquiry lasted for just a couple of days. I think that is a very clear demonstration of the way that the government is conducting itself these days, where inquiries that often merit a much greater level of detailed consideration of legislation are truncated because the government controls not only the House of Representatives but the Senate. Nevertheless, in principle, it is an improvement and on that basis it has real merit. In fact, anything that moves towards improving the life prospects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities should be welcomed by this parliament.

The life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is a staggering 17 years lower than that of non-Indigenous communities. So, while there have been very big increases in life expectancy in non-Indigenous communities over the last century, including in the last few years, the lag for Indigenous people in Australia is just appalling—17 fewer years. Infant mortality is a scourge on those communities and health problems through the lives of many Indigenous people are just a terrible indictment on our claim to be a civilised and fair society. Many Indigenous people, especially in remote communities, live in Third World conditions. But those sorts of realities are not confined exclusively to remote communities; urban based Indigenous people often face very severe hardship and disadvantage as well. What do we do about this as a very wealthy country that has enjoyed 15 years of sustained economic growth, very high living standards and great prosperity—but not prosperity shared fairly around our nation and not prosperity that is then translated through to better health and quality of life experiences for so many of the less fortunate in our country?

I have had several conversations with an Indigenous leader, one of the members of Logan elders in my own community of Logan City: Mr Patrick Jerome. He has long argued, as a chaplain who visits and supports Indigenous people in our prisons, that respect for Indigenous culture would go a considerable distance in improving the standing of Indigenous communities in our country. When you stop and think about that, it does have a lot of force. Indigenous people are reminded so frequently, at school and in the adult community, that the white community does not consider their culture to be important, valuable and rich, and yet it is. The Dreaming and all the stories that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people tell to educate their young ones are wonderful, and yet very often Indigenous people in school settings feel that there is no respect for them or their culture—that in some way they are second-class citizens. The sorts of bullying and cruel remarks that are made amongst very young people can scar Indigenous people for life.

We in the non-Indigenous community should not be surprised that anger and resentment well up in Indigenous people in Australia. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to condemn what he sees as the black armband view of history in Australia in the so-called culture wars, but the truth is that great injustices have been wreaked upon Indigenous people in this country and seeking to revise history will not obliterate that very dark stain on our history. That stain can be seen today in the disadvantage and suffering of many Indigenous Australians—suffering in the form of alcohol and other drug abuse; suffering in the form of domestic violence, which is a huge problem in some Indigenous communities; and suffering in the form of child abuse. I do not mind the fact that a light is shone on these terrible cruelties. I do not care that these practices are being put in the spotlight. I do care that when we shine the light it is on one community. The point I am making is that we should be saying that we condemn these practices and that we will do everything we possibly can to address problems of sexual abuse, child abuse, violence, alcoholism and drug dependency in any community, wherever we see it. I am arguing that if that seems painful at times and if it seems controversial that we shine a light on these practices, whether they are in Indigenous or non-Indigenous communities, it is only for the common good. Unless and until the community appreciates the depth and dimensions of the problem, the community will not support the sorts of measures that are needed to remedy this awful disadvantage and suffering.

I want to acknowledge the thinking and contribution of Patrick Jerome for instilling in me, over many conversations, the importance of respect for Indigenous culture. I think that is a very important threshold issue. I also want to acknowledge the wonderful role being played by the broader group—that is, the Logan elders—in Logan City. Logan City has quite a large Indigenous community—certainly more than 3,000 members, both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. The Logan elders grouping was formed on their own initiative. They take a lot of responsibility wherever they can for the health and welfare of their own community. They work constructively with the state government. They are happy and keen to work constructively with the Commonwealth government wherever they possibly can but, importantly, they do not sit around just blaming everyone and complaining. They want to get on with getting actual results and I think they are a wonderful group of people.

The Logan elders are a model for other Indigenous communities around Australia. Indeed, the member for Kingsford Smith came to our local area and spent many hours talking with the Logan elders grouping. He is looking at that as a possible model for La Perouse in his own electorate. If we can spread the word and the wisdom of the Logan elders, and the structure that they have created, that would be a very good result.

In addition to learning more about Indigenous culture and respecting Indigenous people for their deep cultural heritage, it is important that an economic base is established wherever we can for Indigenous people. To that effect, this legislation will make some contribution because it modernises the measures in relation to corporations that deliver a lot of those services. But we do need to ask whether different Indigenous communities have an economic base. We all know of the stolen generation and the practices, however well or poorly intentioned, of bringing different Indigenous groupings together in one location and placing them in a mission or creating a township—for example, Doomadgee. It is reasonable to question whether townships like Doomadgee have an inherently productive economic base. I cannot assert an answer to that question, but it is a question that is well worth asking.

If we do want to support Indigenous communities in establishing an economic base, there needs to be some inherent viability in what we are trying to achieve or what they are trying to achieve with the support of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the question of economic viability becomes a very important one. It is heartbreaking for anyone, including Indigenous communities, to establish business enterprises that are doomed to fail. So let us ensure that where we can support the establishment of business enterprises in Indigenous communities, they do have a viable economic prospect.

An industry in the north of Australia, north of the Tropic of Capricorn, which is proving to be very viable in these times, is mining. I think the projections over the next 20 years in relation to the proportion of the population north of the Tropic of Capricorn that will have Indigenous blood are quite astonishing. The fertility rates amongst Indigenous communities are very high. The previous speaker mentioned that 40 per cent of Indigenous Australians are under the age of 15. Yet fertility rates in the non-Indigenous community have dropped dramatically. Despite a little kick up in the last year, the rates are still much lower than they were during the baby boom of the early 1960s. The fertility rates are about half of what they were in the 1960s, but the fertility rates in Indigenous communities are very high indeed.

One way of thinking about future economic prospects for Indigenous communities is for mining companies to look upon them as potentially a very valuable human resource. If, with the support of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, there could be a really productive engagement between Indigenous communities and the mining sector, that could be a sustainable economic base over a very long period of time. Indeed, while large amounts of money are offered to attract non-Indigenous Australians to remote communities, the irony is that Indigenous Australians very often prefer to live in remote communities, where the mines are. We can take advantage of that. I know that some of Australia’s major mining companies now have genuinely active engagement programs for Indigenous people working on the mines, and not for low pay. If they are able to gain vocational education qualifications, whether it be in the driving and repairing of vehicles or any of the other more technical operations that are associated with large-scale modern mining, then the pay is pretty good. I see that there is a real prospect for creating and strengthening an economic base for Indigenous Australians in remote locations.

More generally there is the issue of empowerment and responsibility. If we can achieve economic empowerment for Indigenous communities, that can only be to their advantage and to the national good. As part of that, there is the question of responsibility, as there is in non-Indigenous communities. There is the question of passive welfare. Perhaps we need to be looking to mutual obligation, as is the case in non-Indigenous communities. The Halls Creek trial in Western Australia produced some encouraging results. I am not absolutely aware of the current status of that. I understand that legal advice found that it breached the Social Security Act. The trial involved, among other things, school attendance as a condition of receiving particular income support payments. The results of that, as I am advised, were quite encouraging.

That raises the broader issue of participation in education by Indigenous children. Just by way of example, I have been looking at high school completion rates in this country. They are quite low by international standards. Australia’s high school completion rate is around 70 per cent, so that means that 30 per cent of young Australians do not finish high school. That is around 80,000 young Australians a year. That is 30 per cent of young Australians overall not finishing high school, but for Australians from low-socioeconomic backgrounds the most recently available figure is 41 per cent. For Indigenous young people it is much higher than that. I do not assert that high school completion is the be-all and end-all, but we do know that if we can improve the education experience and attainment of Indigenous communities then a lot of the other difficulties will be resolved.

I believe that we have not been very successful. In fact, that would be an understatement. We have been spectacularly unsuccessful as a country in lifting the education attainment and experience of Indigenous Australians. One of the key considerations in all of this is the development of school experiences that reflect and are sensitive to the cultural background and practices of Indigenous Australians. I am not talking about making excuses or saying in any way that it is okay for young Indigenous Australians not to attend primary school, but at the same time we need to ensure that school experiences are engaging for Indigenous Australians, as is the case for non-Indigenous Australians. If they are not engaging, no amount of mutual obligation, no amount of effort on the part of parents, is going to result in young Indigenous Australians staying at school and becoming enriched by a good education.

In this day and age, with the enormous wealth of this country, it is surely not beyond our wit to develop schools with quality teachers, hardworking teachers—and teachers are hardworking—who are able to deliver an engaging education experience to young people in Indigenous communities. If we can break into that, if we can turn that key, it will open the door to a much fairer Australia, a much more prosperous Australia and much better life chances for our Indigenous people, to whom we owe a great debt.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For almost 30 years the operations of Indigenous corporations have been guided by the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976—a law that outlines the various rights and responsibilities of the corporations and also of their directors and executives. There have been several reviews of the act over that time. The last started in 2001. Many of the recommendations for change that are set out in the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006 and cognate bills are included as a result of that review. As many members are aware, this House introduced updated legislation to guide Australian corporations in general way back in 2001. This has had implications for the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976.

A report by the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations into the review of the ACA Act noted that it is now ‘inconsistent with modern corporations law in Australia’. The report stated:

... the ACA Act provides inadequate protection for members, a one-size-fits-all approach to corporations and insufficient third party protection which makes securing credit more difficult.

It also suggested that the act was:

... out of date and suffered from a large number of technical shortcomings to the point that the ACA Act itself had become a source of disadvantage for Indigenous people.

The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 seeks to rectify these major shortcomings. The bill also improves the legislative guides and protection for Indigenous corporations in areas such as accountability. The bill introduces a greater accountability for directors, bringing the laws into closer line with general corporate standards. Currently some of those business entities that come under the provisions of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 fall into what the ORAC describes as a ‘regulatory gap’, whereby the authority for close scrutiny by state regulators, the registrar or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is clouded in uncertainty.

With respect to responsible governance, the bill requires those many corporations registered under the act—–at present there are some 2,600 corporations—to have an internal governance framework. It will ensure that transparency is maintained in corporate decision making while also promoting better maintenance of business records. With respect to cultural recognition, practices specific to Indigenous culture can also be built into the governance framework. With respect to greater support for members, the registrar of the corporations under the ACA Act will be able to offer assistance in dispute resolution and afford a level of protection to those members who have difficulty in protecting their own rights.

With respect to human rights support, the bill gives the registrar of the Indigenous corporations the preventative powers, in certain circumstances, to help protect remote funds, assets and services. With respect to the removal of red tape, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 will help to classify Indigenous corporations into three groups—large, medium and small—for the purposes of reporting. It is not right to believe in this area that one size should fit all. It is expected that, in general, the small and medium sized corporations will have less stringent reporting requirements while the larger corporations will find reporting requirements in line with those stipulated in the Corporations Act 2001. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, those are just a selection of the provisions in the bill.

One of the umbrella findings of the ACA Act review of 2001 culminated in a recommendation for a new act to provide Indigenous people with the key facilities of a modern incorporation statute such as the Corporations Act but at the same time provide special forms of regulatory assistance to raise the standards of corporate governance among Indigenous corporations. The Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 acts upon, and indeed implements, that recommendation to introduce new legislation to replace the current outdated laws. It will serve to assist the Indigenous corporate sector by improving the safeguards for this significant section of Australia’s business community and also promoting responsible and accountable management. That, of course, is a very laudable aim.

These legislative changes will be assisted by the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006, which will support the CATSI bill by amending references to the ACA Act and other acts in various related legislation. In addition, the changes will be assisted by the Corporations Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations) Bill 2006, which amends the Corporations Act to update it in line with the new CATSI legislation. The bills currently before the chamber are an important initiative of reform by this government, and I am particularly pleased to be able to support other honourable members in backing these bills to make sure that, as soon as possible, they become part of the law of the land.

Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Corporations Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations) Bill 2006 and cognate bills are important pieces of legislation updating the Aboriginal Councils Association Act 1976. As no doubt just about every other speaker would have said, the legal environment for corporate regulation has changed very significantly in the last 30 years. The legislative package is very specific and there are a series of bills. The reforms largely replicate modern standards. In a general sense it is important, in my view, not only to update but also to recognise the challenges that are within Indigenous organisations. They are charged with very difficult and unique tasks, and the level of governance is always going to be challenging. This is an important step to encourage, protect and develop the integrity of the capacity of Indigenous governance.

I have a great interest in this subject, as I am sure just about all members would, in terms of wellbeing, development and, as the previous Labor speaker, Dr Emerson, mentioned, education. We have huge challenges there which just seem to bedevil us. The innovation that is needed is something that is all before us. In other words, whilst it is predominantly a state matter, working it in with the federal system is a great challenge, particularly in education, so I compliment the previous speaker on that.

Going back to the bills, the importance of accountability and the importance of a transparent, practical approach within modern corporations law is something that cannot be overstated. We in this place pass a lot of legislation, and it is a very difficult legal environment. To relate that back to on-the-ground strategies is not always easy.

I also note that a minor amendment to the Native Title Act 1993 to correct a technical problem prevents replacement agent prescribed bodies corporate—which is a type of corporation that can be formed to hold or manage native title—being recognised as registered native title bodies corporate under the Native Title Act. It is important to note that. In terms of the parliamentary amendments to be introduced in the CATSI bill by the government, one amendment is to correct a technical oversight, such as ensuring that all CATSI corporations fall into the categories of small, medium and large to create a more tailored reporting scheme. This makes sure that corporations can give reports that are appropriately targeted to their size and purpose, removing the one-size-fits-all approach, which is what I was endeavouring to say a while ago about the practical results that need to come from this legislation. The amendment corrects an error that has meant that some corporations may have fallen outside these three categories.

I note that the minister is at the table. I do not intend to go on, because a lot of this material has been well and truly stated. But this evening I needed to make the general observation that the future of Indigenous affairs, in my view, will rely on good corporate governance, on appropriate training and on transparency that will match the modern day need for the outcomes that we are looking for in Indigenous affairs. This is not just a matter of legal technicality; it is so that we have the foundation stone for the legal framework that will meet the practical needs of Indigenous affairs. The minister is at the table, and I do not intend to go on any longer. I wish the bills speedy passage.

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the summing up of the debate on the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005, the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Consequential, Transitional and Other Measures Bill 2006 and the Corporations Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations) Bill 2006. The outdated Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act needs to be replaced. The bills before the House reflect international best practice in Indigenous corporate governance and will help to produce better outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

The tabled amendments respond to feedback received since the introduction of the first bill in June 2005. The transitional measures minimise the administrative burden on corporations already registered under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. They will have up to two years to meet the requirements of the new act. The Corporations Act 2001 will be amended to close existing regulatory gaps. While there have been issues raised today in the debate, it is clear that there is broad support for the passage of the bills.

Let me thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its report, which supports passage of the legislation. I note the committee’s recommendation that the government should monitor funding to assist corporations with the transition to the new regime. The recent $28 million budget initiative to strengthen the capacity of Indigenous corporations will include funding associated with implementation of the new act. This is in addition to the registrar’s existing funding. Adequacy of funding will be subject to regular review. The committee also recommended restricting the right of members to request a general meeting to voting members. I am advised that the flexibility of the bill already caters for this if it is desired by corporations.

The committee has also recommended monitoring the practical interaction of the bills with other legislation, particularly the Native Title Act. It is intended that the registrar will monitor the implementation of the new act for three years and will publish details of this in its contribution to the FaCSIA annual reports and the registrar’s year books. This monitoring will specifically cover the practical interaction of the new act with other legislation, including the Native Title Act.

I now turn to the details of the legislative package. The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act was developed in the 1970s to cater for the small number of landholding corporations linked to the first land rights legislation. There is consensus that the legislation no longer meets the needs of Indigenous corporations or the communities that they serve. The new legislation responds to the present day problems faced by Indigenous corporations. It aligns corporate governance requirements with modern standards of corporate accountability while allowing flexibility for Indigenous corporations to tailor their arrangements to suit their own special circumstances.

Indigenous corporations are crucial to many Indigenous Australians, and in remote areas they are crucial to non-Indigenous residents as well. They are the lifeblood of many communities—holding land and native title, providing essential infrastructure, such as power, and delivering the most basic of services, such as medical care. It is not appropriate for them to have lower corporate governance standards. Indigenous corporations need special support and regulation tailored to their circumstances and meeting the requirements of special statutory regimes, including native title. However, special support and regulations need to be consistent with current basic practices of other corporate regulators.

The backbone of the legislation is the application of mainstream governance standards to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. The standards allow flexible and customised regulation appropriate to the context in which a corporation is operating. Without regulatory powers, such as the appointment of a special administrator, Indigenous corporations and the important services they provide would be at risk.

The appointment of a special administrator carries with it new rights of review previously unavailable under the old act. The bills have a strong focus on reducing red tape for smaller corporations, which will have fewer reporting requirements in proportion to their size. Larger, more sophisticated organisations will have more rigorous reporting arrangements in line with modern corporations law. We need to remember that many corporations are often responsible for many millions of dollars of public funding. Amendments are a response to feedback from a range of stakeholders since the introduction of the bills, including submissions made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee.

The most significant of the amendments deal with the voluntary transfer and amalgamation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. These new provisions will allow a body corporate registered under another law to seamlessly transfer its registration to the new act. Similarly, these amendments will allow a corporation to transfer its registration to other regimes such as the Corporations Act. These amendments reduce red tape and give corporations the choice to use the incorporation law that best suits them.

Other amendments will allow corporations to amalgamate, providing an option to reduce the number of corporations and therefore reduce the compliance burden on individuals and communities. These are important reforms that complement other changes being implemented by the Australian government to provide hope and a better future for our Indigenous citizens. All our reforms, including these bills, are about empowering local people to have more say over their own lives. I commend these bills to the House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Snowdon’s amendment) stand part of the question.