Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

We are talking about the role of NTRBs. What concerns me with all of this is that the government’s position seems to focus on the bean-counting role—as it should—to ensure that Commonwealth moneys are spent effectively. The role that the NTRBs play is a very important one. They assist and facilitate the preparation of native title applications, including mediation, negotiations and proceedings relating to native title and related processes. They provide written certification of applications for determinations of native title and related processes for land or waters in the representative body area.

They also promote dispute resolution between constituents about native title applications, so that is very much involved with native title, the participants and claimants in the system. They can also be party to Indigenous land use agreements. Those are the functions of NTRBs. So given that, Minister—I should say, ‘Through the chair,’ although it is not adequate dealing with it in that way—it strikes me that the direction the government is going in this schedule, schedule 1, is underpinned by its words of improving accountability without more. The more is if the government maintains that there are more efficient, more effective examples that can be used.

So what work has the government undertaken to promote those examples across other NTRBs? Has it undertaken casework, case studies—promoted those? Has it effectively ensured that, if there are successful NTRBs, the government can hold them up to the light and say they pass the accountability test, they pass the efficiency test and they are effective in their representation and their role? What work has the government undertaken to promote those examples? Has it undertaken case studies? Has it provided improvements to others and modelled arrangements? Has it provided guidelines? Has it said, ‘These are successful and provide effective representation’?

Those are issues where the government could come to the table and say, ‘You’re not meeting those benchmarks, those requirements, the guidelines,’ or however else the government wants to do it. An area springs to mind, although it is unrelated: when the government moved to outsourcing legal services in 1999 post the Logan review, we then went through a situation where departments were able to seek their own outsourced legal service and maintain an in-house legal service or other models—although it is my view that it went all over the shop. There has been an audit report or two into this area plus the Tongue report, which demonstrated there were failings in the system that needed addressing.

One of the things they talked about significantly was ensuring that there were strategic plans, strategic direction, and areas which would go to not only accountability but framework mechanisms to ensure that people understood what their requirements were. The role of the outsourced legal service provider was to ensure that they were meeting the guidelines but also that the people within each department would then ensure those guidelines were being met. I know I digress, but what is the government doing in this area if it is going to pursue these amendments over our objection?

I turn specifically to amendments (7) and (8). They would substitute a different section 203AH(2), which deals with discretionary withdrawal of a representative body’s recognition. The government’s proposed changes would remove representation of native title holders and consultation with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as matters which the minister needs to consider in removing recognition. It would also insert serious and repeated irregularities in the financial affairs of the body as a criterion for withdrawal. Labor’s substitute under amendment (7) delivers the good outcomes the government wants while preserving the integrity of the process, while amendment (8) is consequential upon that.

Amendment (9) deals with reporting requirements. As proposed, the bill would remove the requirements for representative bodies to prepare strategic plans and prepare annual reports. Annual reports provide invaluable insight into the operation of rep bodies, providing information on the performance of functions and the exercise of powers. They are also required to contain audited financial statements. Importantly section 203DC(6) stipulates that the minister must put the report before parliament. This allows the content of the report to be discussed in the House and committees. It is also a valuable accountability mechanism.

As senators would know, annual reports are, by and large, pored over, read and looked at often as accountability documents, not only for the good read they sometimes provide. It would seem to be important to preserve that process. It would be unusual to find an annual report that is not chased up, and provided by the department. It would seem important that they do that, whereas in this instance the government is proposing not to continue with this process. In my view that would be tantamount to saying the minor agencies or even important agencies of some size should not provide annual reports about their performance and should not have audited accounts tabled in parliament so that parliament can have the opportunity of examining them.

The government’s answer is that reports still have to be prepared, but it seems trite not to seek to have them lodged in parliament as well. Perhaps the government can explain the rationale for that. Amendments (11) to (15)—and (30), which is yet to be moved—are consequential amendments, and I will not deal with them at any length.